Chronic PainPainAppNCT03425266
The Pain App Study: A Novel Shared Decision Making Tool for People With Chronic Pain
A study testing Interactive decision support tool in people with Chronic Pain, run by Shared Decision Making Resources at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The investigators seek to understand the preferences, goals, and perspectives of patients with chronic pain and their health care providers (HCPs) to create a patient-centered decision support tool. This tool, aimed at patients and HCPs, should improve patient-provider communication and chronic pain management. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Chronic Pain
- What is being tested?
- Interactive decision support tool
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 80 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 11 Jan 2018to 31 Oct 2018
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- chronic pain for at least 1 year.
- upcoming appointment with a referring health care provider about their chronic pain within the next 3 months.
Who cannot join
- primary cause of pain due to cardiovascular or gastrointestinal problem
- unable or unwilling to give informed consent
- no access to internet
- unable to use a computer
- currently pregnant
- Unable to speak English
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
Shared Decision Making Resources
Georgetown, Maine, 04548
About this study
Official title: Incorporating Patient Preferences Into Decisions About Chronic Pain Management (The Pain APP Study)
The investigators seek to understand the preferences, goals, and perspectives of patients with chronic pain and their health care providers (HCPs) to create a patient-centered decision support tool. This tool, aimed at patients and HCPs, should improve patient-provider communication and chronic pain management. The investigators' long-term goal is to improve the quality of life of patients with chronic pain. The investigators target adults with chronic unremitting pain and HCPs who manage patients with chronic pain, including primary care providers and pain specialists.
A pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) will measure the impact of a new online tool that the investigators developed (Pain-APP) in a representative sample of adults with chronic pain, including approximately 50 patients and 4-15 HCPs. Eligible patients will be enrolled online, and after informed consent and eliciting baseline socio-demographic information, randomized online to either Pain-APP or the control group, which will consist of online educational materials at the ACPA website (https://theacpa.org/Communication-Tools). Patients in both groups will be assessed online before, just after viewing the intervention materials, just after the index clinic visit, and 1 month later. Patient-reported outcomes include patient-provider communication, pain intensity and interference, attitudes towards and use of opioid medication.
Read the detailed description
Having completed our formative work, development and refinement of PainApp, the investigators will evaluate it in a small pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) on a representative sample of patients with chronic pain and their HCPs.
The investigators will conduct a small RCT, including up to 50 patients and 5-15 HCPs. Eligible patients will be enrolled online. After informed consent, they will be randomized to either Pain-APP or the control group, which will consist of online educational materials (TheACPA.org). Patients in both groups will be assessed before, immediately after viewing the tool, shortly after the index clinic visit, and 1 month later. Patient-reported outcomes include patient-provider communication, pain intensity and interference, physical function, and depression (See Table 3). The investigators also include qualitative patient evaluations on a sampling (<20%) of patients to capture the full range of its impact and to explore potential mechanisms of action. Structured phone interviews, including open-ended questions, will assess patient perceptions of the platform, perceptions about how it affected communication and decisions making about treatments, trust in their HCP, and self-efficacy.
HCPs will be surveyed shortly after the patient encounter to assess acceptability of the tool, its perceived utility, and its impact on clinical efficiency. Additionally, quality of the patient encounter, ease of assessing patients with pain and of making decisions regarding treatments to manage that patient's pain will be evaluated using previously developed instruments.
The Study's Main Hypothesis: Compared to control, patients assigned to Pain-APP will have better patient-HCP communication.
Phase I data analyses plan: Multidimensional scaling was used to analyze the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) and card sort data. Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to identify subgroups of homogeneous strategies. Cognitive maps reflecting different patterns of goals and shared decision making (SDM) strategies were developed for patients and HCPs. These analyses helped the investigators understand how goals/strategies are viewed and organized by our stakeholders, which informed the design of PainApp.
Phase II data analysis plan: For the RCT, the primary outcomes analyzed will be patient-provider communication (COMM), pain (PAIN), and interference (FUNCTION), all of which will be treated as continuous.
The investigators will compare Pain-APP and the control intervention. The investigators will adhere to accepted standards. Analysis will be done in 4 stages: The investigators will examine 1) whether variables meet expected distributional assumptions; 2) bivariate associations between treatment arms and each outcome, and between covariates and outcomes; 3) unadjusted measures of effect and potential confounders; 4) exploratory multivariable analyses. Patients who are lost to follow-up will be treated according to their assigned group (intent to treat analysis). The investigators will use analysis of covariance to assess differences in outcomes between assigned groups, adjusting for any baseline differences between the randomized comparison groups. Covariates will include baseline health status, moderators listed in Table 3, and prescriber characteristics. The investigators will use linear mixed-effects models, treating scores at different points in time as repeated measures to account for inter-correlation between these measurements. The investigators will control for patient- and HCP-level factors by including them as covariates.
ii) Quantify the amount of change expected: The investigators expect to find, at minimum, a 20% improvement in communication, comparing the difference in communication pre- post- intervention in the Pain-APP group to that of the control group. Power analysis: The investigators expect a mean of 70 and a SD of 20. With the proposed sample size of 50 (25 in each arm), the investigators estimate having an 80% chance of detecting a 20% improvement on the primary outcome COMM at time=T1, with a type-I error rate of 0.05.
- Conditions
- Chronic Pain
- Being tested
- Interactive decision support tool
- Keywords
- shared decision-making, decision support tool, patient-provider communication, managing chronic pain, patient preferences, values clarification
- Medical subject headings
- Chronic Pain, Patient Preference
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Interactive decision support toolOther
Also called PainApp
PainApp 1) assesses patient treatment goals (a structured values clarification exercise) and preferences, including decision making and communication preferences; 2) presents structured educational modules tailored to the user's stated goals and preferences; 3) presents educational information addressing identified gaps in care and communication; 4) assesses pain, pain interference, function, and other clinical factors; 5) generates succinct individualized summaries of patient treatment preferences and medical history, tailored to different clinical settings; 6) generates a personalized report for the patient, based on their goals and interests; 7) transmits the clinical summary to the patient and their provider(s), with patient permission.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Interactive decision support tool | Experimental | Online interactive multimedia decision support tool that the patient interacts with before seeing their provider that helps them learn more about chronic pain, identify treatment goals and preferences, and communicate more effectively with their provider. The tool takes between 20-45 minutes to use. It generates and transmits a preference summary for the patient and a summary of relevant shared decision making elements and medical history elements intended for sharing with providers if the patient chooses. Receives: Other: Interactive decision support tool |
| Control | No intervention | Our control arm is a leading consumer-facing website designed for people with chronic pain (the ACPA). Subjects randomly assigned to this arm will be directed to the page focusing on communication tools, which also includes links to other parts of the website. The specific page is: https://theacpa.org/Communication-Tools |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
CG CAHPS (adult, Clinician and Group Survey)
The study uses a composite measure comprised of the items from the CG CAHPS survey that relate to shared decision making, including self-reported patient-provider communication (explained things, listened carefully, showed respect, spent enough time), patient rating of provider, care coordination (provider knew important information about the patient's medical history), rating of overall health and overall mental or emotional health.
Measured: within 3 days of seeing their HCP
The 10-item satisfaction with communication subscale of the COMRADE scale
The the Combined Outcome Measure for Risk Communication and Treatment Decision Making Effectiveness (COMRADE ) (Edwards 2003) is a 20 item patient-based outcome measure, with two sub-scales for 'risk communication' and 'confidence in decision'. It is a self-reported measure of patient-provider communication. Scores from the satisfaction with communication subscale are summed to produce a total score for that subscale. A higher score corresponds to higher satisfaction. Maximum score on the subscale is 20, minimum is 0.
Measured: within 3 days of seeing their HCP
Secondary outcomes (5)
The Brief Pain Inventory
Self reported assessment of pain at its worst, least, average, and now, and interference of pain with 7 daily activities (walking, work, mood, enjoyment of life, relations with others, and sleep).
Measured: immediately after viewing the intervention, just after seeing their HCP, and 1 month later.
Opioid use
Whether or not the patient is currently using an opioid medication
Measured: just after seeing their HCP and 1 month later.
The Decision Self-Efficacy Scale
Self-efficacy will be measured using the Decision Self-Efficacy Scale and is a continuous variable. This scale measures self-confidence or belief in one's abilities in decision making, including shared decision making. The version with 5 response categories (0=not at all confident), 4=very confident) is used. All items are summed, divided by 11, then multiplied by 25. Scores range from 0 (not at all confident) to 100 (very confident). Higher scores (corresponding to more confidence) is considered to be better.
Measured: immediately after viewing the intervention, just after seeing their HCP, and 1 month later.
The Control Preference Scale
The control preferences construct is defined as "the degree of control an individual wants to assume when decisions are being made about medical treatment." It is self-report, using 1-item question. These roles range from the individual making the treatment decisions, through the individual making the decisions jointly with the physician, to the physician making the decisions. Collaborative roles are generally considered preferable to the physician or patient making the decisions alone. The numerical scoring itself is not considered relevant; it is a categorical scale.
Measured: immediately after viewing the intervention, just after seeing their HCP
Attitude towards opioids, drawn, in part, from Prescribed Opioids Difficulty Scale
Self-report of patient perception about opioids, using 1 items, intention to stop using or cut back using opioids, for people currently using an opioid. The study team adapted the question for those not using an opioid, ("It made me not want to use an opioid"; it helped me think about the pros and cons of opioids", and "It changed the way I think about opioids"
Measured: immediately after viewing the intervention, just after seeing their HCP, and 1 month later.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted7 Feb 2018
- Study start11 Jan 2018
- Primary completion14 Jun 2018
- Study completion31 Oct 2018
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (7)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Chronic PainStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Participants are randomly assigned to either the new intervention (PainApp) or a website designed for people with chronic pain before an upcoming appointment with their provider.
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Care provider
- Enrolment
- 80 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Shared Decision Making Resources
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of New England, Pfizer
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Nananda Col, Shared Decision Making Resources
- Investigators
- Nananda F Col, MD, Principal investigator, Shared Decision Making Resources
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03425266
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 012616-019
- Acronym
- PainApp
- Status last verified
- Dec 2023
- First submitted
- 12 Jan 2018
- Last updated
- 12 Dec 2023
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided: Yes, there is a plan to make individual participant data available to other researchers. It consists of a controlled access approach using a transparent and robust system to review requests and provide secure data access (reviewing all reasonable requests by our patient and clinical advisers), providing that there is adequate assurance that patient privacy and confidentiality can be maintained; and does not violate any agreements with our collaborators or sponsor organizations.
Publications
Edwards A, Elwyn G, Hood K, Robling M, Atwell C, Holmes-Rovner M, Kinnersley P, Houston H, Russell I. The development of COMRADE--a patient-based outcome measure to evaluate the effectiveness of risk communication and treatment decision making in consultations. Patient Educ Couns. 2003 Jul;50(3):311-22. doi: 10.1016/s0738-3991(03)00055-7.
PubMed 12900105Cleeland CS, Ryan KM. Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med Singap. 1994 Mar;23(2):129-38.
PubMed 8080219Banta-Green CJ, Von Korff M, Sullivan MD, Merrill JO, Doyle SR, Saunders K. The prescribed opioids difficulties scale: a patient-centered assessment of problems and concerns. Clin J Pain. 2010 Jul-Aug;26(6):489-97. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e3181e103d9.
PubMed 20551723Sepucha KR, Borkhoff CM, Lally J, Levin CA, Matlock DD, Ng CJ, Ropka ME, Stacey D, Joseph-Williams N, Wills CE, Thomson R. Establishing the effectiveness of patient decision aids: key constructs and measurement instruments. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S12. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S12. Epub 2013 Nov 29.
PubMed 24625035Col NF, Solomon AJ, Springmann V, Garbin CP, Ionete C, Pbert L, Alvarez E, Tierman B, Hopson A, Kutz C, Berrios Morales I, Griffin C, Phillips G, Ngo LH. Whose Preferences Matter? A Patient-Centered Approach for Eliciting Treatment Goals. Med Decis Making. 2018 Jan;38(1):44-55. doi: 10.1177/0272989X17724434. Epub 2017 Aug 14.
PubMed 28806143Degner LF, Sloan JA, Venkatesh P. The Control Preferences Scale. Can J Nurs Res. 1997 Fall;29(3):21-43.
PubMed 9505581Col N, Hull S, Springmann V, Ngo L, Merritt E, Gold S, Sprintz M, Genova N, Nesin N, Tierman B, Sanfilippo F, Entel R, Pbert L. Improving patient-provider communication about chronic pain: development and feasibility testing of a shared decision-making tool. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020 Oct 17;20(1):267. doi: 10.1186/s12911-020-01279-8.
PubMed 33069228
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 12 Dec 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Incorporating Patient Preferences Into Decisions About Chronic Pain Management (The Pain APP Study)
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03425266
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- PainApp / 012616-019
- Conditions
- Chronic Pain
- Keywords
- shared decision-making, decision support tool, patient-provider communication, managing chronic pain, patient preferences, values clarification
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 80 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Shared Decision Making ResourcesUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of New England, Pfizer
- Study start
- 11 Jan 2018 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 14 Jun 2018 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Oct 2018 (actual)
- First posted
- 7 Feb 2018 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The investigators seek to understand the preferences, goals, and perspectives of patients with chronic pain and their health care providers (HCPs) to create a patient-centered decision support tool. This tool, aimed at patients and HCPs, should improve patient-provider communication and chronic pain management. The investigators' long-term goal is to improve the quality of life of patients with chronic pain. The investigators target adults with chronic unremitting pain and HCPs who manage patients with chronic pain, including primary care providers and pain specialists.
A pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) will measure the impact of a new online tool that the investigators developed (Pain-APP) in a representative sample of adults with chronic pain, including approximately 50 patients and 4-15 HCPs. Eligible patients will be enrolled online, and after informed consent and eliciting baseline socio-demographic information, randomized online to either Pain-APP or the control group, which will consist of online educational materials at the ACPA website (https://theacpa.org/Communication-Tools). Patients in both groups will be assessed online before, just after viewing the intervention materials, just after the index clinic visit, and 1 month later. Patient-reported outcomes include patient-provider communication, pain intensity and interference, attitudes towards and use of opioid medication.
Detailed description
Having completed our formative work, development and refinement of PainApp, the investigators will evaluate it in a small pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) on a representative sample of patients with chronic pain and their HCPs.
The investigators will conduct a small RCT, including up to 50 patients and 5-15 HCPs. Eligible patients will be enrolled online. After informed consent, they will be randomized to either Pain-APP or the control group, which will consist of online educational materials (TheACPA.org). Patients in both groups will be assessed before, immediately after viewing the tool, shortly after the index clinic visit, and 1 month later. Patient-reported outcomes include patient-provider communication, pain intensity and interference, physical function, and depression (See Table 3). The investigators also include qualitative patient evaluations on a sampling (<20%) of patients to capture the full range of its impact and to explore potential mechanisms of action. Structured phone interviews, including open-ended questions, will assess patient perceptions of the platform, perceptions about how it affected communication and decisions making about treatments, trust in their HCP, and self-efficacy.
HCPs will be surveyed shortly after the patient encounter to assess acceptability of the tool, its perceived utility, and its impact on clinical efficiency. Additionally, quality of the patient encounter, ease of assessing patients with pain and of making decisions regarding treatments to manage that patient's pain will be evaluated using previously developed instruments.
The Study's Main Hypothesis: Compared to control, patients assigned to Pain-APP will have better patient-HCP communication.
Phase I data analyses plan: Multidimensional scaling was used to analyze the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) and card sort data. Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to identify subgroups of homogeneous strategies. Cognitive maps reflecting different patterns of goals and shared decision making (SDM) strategies were developed for patients and HCPs. These analyses helped the investigators understand how goals/strategies are viewed and organized by our stakeholders, which informed the design of PainApp.
Phase II data analysis plan: For the RCT, the primary outcomes analyzed will be patient-provider communication (COMM), pain (PAIN), and interference (FUNCTION), all of which will be treated as continuous.
The investigators will compare Pain-APP and the control intervention. The investigators will adhere to accepted standards. Analysis will be done in 4 stages: The investigators will examine 1) whether variables meet expected distributional assumptions; 2) bivariate associations between treatment arms and each outcome, and between covariates and outcomes; 3) unadjusted measures of effect and potential confounders; 4) exploratory multivariable analyses. Patients who are lost to follow-up will be treated according to their assigned group (intent to treat analysis). The investigators will use analysis of covariance to assess differences in outcomes between assigned groups, adjusting for any baseline differences between the randomized comparison groups. Covariates will include baseline health status, moderators listed in Table 3, and prescriber characteristics. The investigators will use linear mixed-effects models, treating scores at different points in time as repeated measures to account for inter-correlation between these measurements. The investigators will control for patient- and HCP-level factors by including them as covariates.
ii) Quantify the amount of change expected: The investigators expect to find, at minimum, a 20% improvement in communication, comparing the difference in communication pre- post- intervention in the Pain-APP group to that of the control group. Power analysis: The investigators expect a mean of 70 and a SD of 20. With the proposed sample size of 50 (25 in each arm), the investigators estimate having an 80% chance of detecting a 20% improvement on the primary outcome COMM at time=T1, with a type-I error rate of 0.05.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, care provider)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Participants are randomly assigned to either the new intervention (PainApp) or a website designed for people with chronic pain before an upcoming appointment with their provider.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Interactive decision support tool | Experimental | Other: Interactive decision support toolOnline interactive multimedia decision support tool that the patient interacts with before seeing their provider that helps them learn more about chronic pain, identify treatment goals and preferences, and communicate more effectively with their provider. The tool takes between 20-45 minutes to use. It generates and transmits a preference summary for the patient and a summary of relevant shared decision making elements and medical history elements intended for sharing with providers if the patient chooses. |
| Control | No intervention | –Our control arm is a leading consumer-facing website designed for people with chronic pain (the ACPA). Subjects randomly assigned to this arm will be directed to the page focusing on communication tools, which also includes links to other parts of the website. The specific page is: https://theacpa.org/Communication-Tools |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- chronic pain for at least 1 year.
- upcoming appointment with a referring health care provider about their chronic pain within the next 3 months.
Key exclusion criteria (6 listed)
- primary cause of pain due to cardiovascular or gastrointestinal problem
- unable or unwilling to give informed consent
- no access to internet
- unable to use a computer
- currently pregnant
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Interactive decision support toolAlso: PainAppPainApp 1) assesses patient treatment goals (a structured values clarification exercise) and preferences, including decision making and communication preferences; 2) presents structured educational modules tailored to the user's stated goals and preferences; 3) presents educational information addressing identified gaps in care and communication; 4) assesses pain, pain interference, function, and other clinical factors; 5) generates succinct individualized summaries of patient treatment preferences and medical history, tailored to different clinical settings; 6) generates a personalized report for the patient, based on their goals and interests; 7) transmits the clinical summary to the patient and their provider(s), with patient permission. | Other | Interactive decision support tool |
Primary outcome
CG CAHPS (adult, Clinician and Group Survey)
Time frame: within 3 days of seeing their HCP
The study uses a composite measure comprised of the items from the CG CAHPS survey that relate to shared decision making, including self-reported patient-provider communication (explained things, listened carefully, showed respect, spent enough time), patient rating of provider, care coordination (provider knew important information about the patient's medical history), rating of overall health and overall mental or emotional health.
The 10-item satisfaction with communication subscale of the COMRADE scale
Time frame: within 3 days of seeing their HCP
The the Combined Outcome Measure for Risk Communication and Treatment Decision Making Effectiveness (COMRADE ) (Edwards 2003) is a 20 item patient-based outcome measure, with two sub-scales for 'risk communication' and 'confidence in decision'. It is a self-reported measure of patient-provider communication. Scores from the satisfaction with communication subscale are summed to produce a total score for that subscale. A higher score corresponds to higher satisfaction. Maximum score on the subscale is 20, minimum is 0.
5 secondary outcomes
The Brief Pain Inventory
Time frame: immediately after viewing the intervention, just after seeing their HCP, and 1 month later.
Opioid use
Time frame: just after seeing their HCP and 1 month later.
The Decision Self-Efficacy Scale
Time frame: immediately after viewing the intervention, just after seeing their HCP, and 1 month later.
The Control Preference Scale
Time frame: immediately after viewing the intervention, just after seeing their HCP
Attitude towards opioids, drawn, in part, from Prescribed Opioids Difficulty Scale
Time frame: immediately after viewing the intervention, just after seeing their HCP, and 1 month later.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 12 Dec 2023.
- Background: PubMed 12900105Edwards A, Elwyn G, Hood K, Robling M, Atwell C, Holmes-Rovner M, Kinnersley P, Houston H, Russell I. The development of COMRADE--a patient-based outcome measure to evaluate the effectiveness of risk communication and treatment decision making in consultations. Patient Educ Couns. 2003 Jul;50(3):311-22. doi: 10.1016/s0738-3991(03)00055-7.
- Background: PubMed 8080219Cleeland CS, Ryan KM. Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med Singap. 1994 Mar;23(2):129-38.
- Background: PubMed 20551723Banta-Green CJ, Von Korff M, Sullivan MD, Merrill JO, Doyle SR, Saunders K. The prescribed opioids difficulties scale: a patient-centered assessment of problems and concerns. Clin J Pain. 2010 Jul-Aug;26(6):489-97. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e3181e103d9.
- Background: PubMed 24625035Sepucha KR, Borkhoff CM, Lally J, Levin CA, Matlock DD, Ng CJ, Ropka ME, Stacey D, Joseph-Williams N, Wills CE, Thomson R. Establishing the effectiveness of patient decision aids: key constructs and measurement instruments. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S12. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S12. Epub 2013 Nov 29.
- Background: PubMed 28806143Col NF, Solomon AJ, Springmann V, Garbin CP, Ionete C, Pbert L, Alvarez E, Tierman B, Hopson A, Kutz C, Berrios Morales I, Griffin C, Phillips G, Ngo LH. Whose Preferences Matter? A Patient-Centered Approach for Eliciting Treatment Goals. Med Decis Making. 2018 Jan;38(1):44-55. doi: 10.1177/0272989X17724434. Epub 2017 Aug 14.
- Background: PubMed 9505581Degner LF, Sloan JA, Venkatesh P. The Control Preferences Scale. Can J Nurs Res. 1997 Fall;29(3):21-43.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 33069228Col N, Hull S, Springmann V, Ngo L, Merritt E, Gold S, Sprintz M, Genova N, Nesin N, Tierman B, Sanfilippo F, Entel R, Pbert L. Improving patient-provider communication about chronic pain: development and feasibility testing of a shared decision-making tool. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020 Oct 17;20(1):267. doi: 10.1186/s12911-020-01279-8.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided. Yes, there is a plan to make individual participant data available to other researchers. It consists of a controlled access approach using a transparent and robust system to review requests and provide secure data access (reviewing all reasonable requests by our patient and clinical advisers), providing that there is adequate assurance that patient privacy and confidentiality can be maintained; and does not violate any agreements with our collaborators or sponsor organizations.
Related trials for Chronic Pain
Active, not recruiting
Integrated Feldenkrais Method With and Without DNS for Chronic Low Back Pain in Females
Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP)
Not yet recruitingObservational study
SERENITY Study of Chronic Pain Interference in Adults
Chronic Low Back Pain, Spinal Cord Injury
RecruitingObservational study
Different Treatments in Chronic Pain Patients.
Chronic Pain, Nociplastic Pain
Not yet recruiting
Dual-Task Core Stabilization Training in Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain
Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain
Active, not recruiting
Multimodal Manual Therapy vs. Maitland Mobilization for Chronic Non-Specific Neck Pain
Chronic Neck Pain
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Nananda F Col, MD principal investigator
Shared Decision Making Resources
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Interactive decision support tool in people with Chronic Pain, run by Shared Decision Making Resources at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 6 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 12 Dec 2023. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
CG CAHPS (adult, Clinician and Group Survey) (time frame: within 3 days of seeing their HCP). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03425266, which also lists 7 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 12 Dec 2023.