Prostate CancerNCT03726320
Trial of Community Health Worker-led Decision Coaching
A study testing Education Counseling Session for PSA Screening and General Health Counseling Coaching in people with Prostate Cancer, run by NYU Langone Health at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Black men are disproportionately affected by prostate cancer, the most common non-cutaneous malignancy among men in the U.S. This randomized trial will evaluate the efficacy of a Community Health Worker-led decision coaching program to facilitate Shared Decision Making (SDM) and Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA)… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 40 to 69 years, men onlyHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Prostate Cancer
- What is being tested?
- Education Counseling Session for PSA Screening and General Health Counseling Coaching
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 162 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 15 Oct 2019to 20 Sep 2023
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
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 40 to 69 years
- Men only
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients:
- Black
- Male
- Attending FQHC for routine primary care appointment
- Providers:
- Provider at Sunset Park Health Council Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC)
- Caring for patients that fit inclusion criteria
Who cannot join
- Provider at Sunset Park Health Council Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC)
- Caring for patients that fit inclusion criteria
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
New York University School of Medicine
New York, New York, 10016
About this study
Official title: Randomized Trial of Community Health Worker-led Decision Coaching to Promote Shared Decision Making for Prostate Cancer Screening Among Black Male Patients and Their Providers
Black men are disproportionately affected by prostate cancer, the most common non-cutaneous malignancy among men in the U.S. This randomized trial will evaluate the efficacy of a Community Health Worker-led decision coaching program to facilitate Shared Decision Making (SDM) and Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) screening among Black men with regards to decision quality, the decision making process, patient-provider communication and PSA utilization for Black men in the primary care setting.
- Conditions
- Prostate Cancer
- Being tested
- Education Counseling Session for PSA Screening, General Health Counseling Coaching
- Medical subject headings
- Prostatic Neoplasms
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Education Counseling Session for PSA ScreeningBehavioural
counseling from extensively trained CHW
General Health Counseling CoachingBehavioural
coaching using an educational tool focused on dietary and lifestyle modification
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention Group | Experimental | A decision aid along with decision coaching on PSA screening from a Community Health Worker (CHW). The intervention will be administered directly prior to the participant's appointment with their provider. Receives: Behavioral: Education Counseling Session for PSA Screening |
| Control Group | Active comparator | A decision aid along with CHW interaction on dietary and lifestyle modification to serve as an attention control. The intervention will be administered directly prior to the participant's appointment with their provider. Receives: Behavioral: General Health Counseling Coaching |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) Screening Rates
Percentage of participants who receive at least one PSA screening. Screening data are collected through patient self-reports and electronic health record data.
Measured: Up to Month 3
Patient Knowledge Survey Score
The Patient Knowledge Survey comprises 12 items assessing participants' understanding of PSA testing and prostate cancer. Respondents provide an answer of "True," "Unsure," or "False." The total score is the sum of correct responses and ranges from 0-12; higher scores indicate greater knowledge.
Measured: Day 1
Decision Quality Score
Scale consists of 12 items assessing participants' attitudes toward prostate cancer treatment and screening (6 Pros and 6 Cons of testing) scored on a 5 point Likert scale (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree). The total score is the sum of responses and ranges from -24 to +24; Positive scores indicate a more favorable assessment of the pros versus the cons of the test.This survey will be administered twice: once directly following the coaching session prior to the patient's appointment, and again following the appointment.
Measured: Day 1
Percentage of Participants Who Make Informed Choice
Percentage of participants who made an Informed Choice to either undergo or decline PSA testing. Informed choices are those in which:
- Men with good knowledge and positive measure of informed choice attitudes (> or = 22) choose to undergo the test OR 2) Men with good knowledge but negative measure of informed choice attitudes (<22) towards the test, do not undergo the test The Measure of Informed Choice Attitudes survey is administered twice: once directly following the coaching session prior to the patient's appointment, and again following the appointment and the patient's screening decision is recorded during post-appointment.
Measured: Day 1
Secondary outcomes (6)
Decision Self-Efficacy Scale Score
The Decision Self-Efficacy Scale is an 11-item survey measuring confidence in making an informed choice. Each item is rated on a scale from 0-4, where 0 = not at all confident and 4 = very confident. The raw score is the sum of responses and is transformed to a standard total score ranging from 0 to 100; higher scores indicate "extremely high self-efficacy."
Measured: Day 1
Doctor-Patient Communication Survey Score
The Doctor-Patient Communication Survey includes 19 items assessing how participants felt they were able to communicate with their provider. Each item is rated on a scale from 1-5, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. The total score is the average score of responses and ranges from 0 to 5; higher scores indicate greater doctor-patient communication.
Measured: Day 1
Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions Questionnaire (PEPPI) Score
PEPPI is a 10-item assessment of participant's perceived self-efficacy for communicating with their provider. Each item is rated on a scale from 1-5, where 1 = not at all confident and 5 = very confident. The total score is the sum of responses and ranges from 10 to 50; higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy in communicating with providers.
Measured: Day 1
Change in Decisional Conflict Scale Score
The Decisional Conflict Scale is a 16-item survey assessing the level of decisional conflict for participants when deciding whether to have prostate cancer screening. Each item is rated on a 0-4 scale, where 0 = strongly agree and 4 = strongly disagree. The total score is the sum of responses and ranges from 0 to 64. Scores lower than 25 are associated with implementing decisions; scores exceeding 37.5 are associated with decision delay or feeling unsure about implementation.
Measured: Day 1
Satisfaction With Decision Scale Score
6-item assessment of participants' satisfaction with their prostate cancer screening decisions. Each item is rated on a 1-5 scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. The total score is the average of all items and ranges from 1-5. Higher scores indicate greater satisfaction with decision.
Measured: Day 1
Decisional Regret Scale Survey
5-item assessment of participants' regret toward the first decision they made about prostate cancer screening after speaking with their provider. Each item is rated on a scale from 1-5, where 1 = strongly agree and 5 = strongly disagree. The total score is the sum of responses and ranges from 5 to 25. Higher scores indicate greater regret. To help others interpret the score more readily with other scales ranging from 0 to 100, these scores can then be converted to a 0-100 scale by subtracting 1 from each item then multiply by 25. To obtain a final score, the items are summed and averaged. The final score presented ranges from 0 to 100, higher scores indicate greater regret.
Measured: Month 6
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted31 Oct 2018
- Study start15 Oct 2019
- Primary completion21 Apr 2023
- Study completion20 Sep 2023
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Prostate CancerStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by NYU Langone HealthThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- 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
- Screening
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Care provider, Investigator
- Enrolment
- 162 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- NYU Langone Health
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD)
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Danil Makarov, MD, Principal investigator, NYU Langone Health
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03726320
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 18-00514
- Other IDs
- 1R01MD012243-01A1
- Status last verified
- May 2024
- First submitted
- 7 Sep 2018
- Last updated
- 23 May 2024
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Aggregate participant data that underlie the results reported in this article, after de-identification (text, tables, figures, and appendices).
Publications
Makarov DV, Feuer Z, Ciprut S, Lopez NM, Fagerlin A, Shedlin M, Gold HT, Li H, Lynch G, Warren R, Ubel P, Ravenell JE. Randomized trial of community health worker-led decision coaching to promote shared decision-making for prostate cancer screening among Black male patients and their providers. Trials. 2021 Feb 10;22(1):128. doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05064-4.
PubMed 33568208
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 23 May 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Randomized Trial of Community Health Worker-led Decision Coaching to Promote Shared Decision Making for Prostate Cancer Screening Among Black Male Patients and Their Providers
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03726320
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 18-00514
- Conditions
- Prostate Cancer
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 162 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- NYU Langone HealthUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD)
- Study start
- 15 Oct 2019 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 21 Apr 2023 (actual)
- Study completion
- 20 Sep 2023 (actual)
- First posted
- 31 Oct 2018 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 23 May 2024
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Black men are disproportionately affected by prostate cancer, the most common non-cutaneous malignancy among men in the U.S. This randomized trial will evaluate the efficacy of a Community Health Worker-led decision coaching program to facilitate Shared Decision Making (SDM) and Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) screening among Black men with regards to decision quality, the decision making process, patient-provider communication and PSA utilization for Black men in the primary care setting.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Screening
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (care provider, investigator)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention Group | Experimental | Behavioral: Education Counseling Session for PSA ScreeningA decision aid along with decision coaching on PSA screening from a Community Health Worker (CHW). The intervention will be administered directly prior to the participant's appointment with their provider. |
| Control Group | Active comparator | Behavioral: General Health Counseling CoachingA decision aid along with CHW interaction on dietary and lifestyle modification to serve as an attention control. The intervention will be administered directly prior to the participant's appointment with their provider. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 40 to 69 years
- Sex
- Male only
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (7 listed)
- Black
- Male
- Attending FQHC for routine primary care appointment
- Provider at Sunset Park Health Council Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC)
- Caring for patients that fit inclusion criteria
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Provider at Sunset Park Health Council Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC)
- Caring for patients that fit inclusion criteria
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Education Counseling Session for PSA Screeningcounseling from extensively trained CHW | Behavioural | Intervention Group |
| General Health Counseling Coachingcoaching using an educational tool focused on dietary and lifestyle modification | Behavioural | Control Group |
Primary outcome
Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) Screening Rates
Time frame: Up to Month 3
Percentage of participants who receive at least one PSA screening. Screening data are collected through patient self-reports and electronic health record data.
Patient Knowledge Survey Score
Time frame: Day 1
The Patient Knowledge Survey comprises 12 items assessing participants' understanding of PSA testing and prostate cancer. Respondents provide an answer of "True," "Unsure," or "False." The total score is the sum of correct responses and ranges from 0-12; higher scores indicate greater knowledge.
Decision Quality Score
Time frame: Day 1
Scale consists of 12 items assessing participants' attitudes toward prostate cancer treatment and screening (6 Pros and 6 Cons of testing) scored on a 5 point Likert scale (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree). The total score is the sum of responses and ranges from -24 to +24; Positive scores indicate a more favorable assessment of the pros versus the cons of the test.This survey will be administered twice: once directly following the coaching session prior to the patient's appointment, and again following the appointment.
Percentage of Participants Who Make Informed Choice
Time frame: Day 1
Percentage of participants who made an Informed Choice to either undergo or decline PSA testing. Informed choices are those in which: 1. Men with good knowledge and positive measure of informed choice attitudes (> or = 22) choose to undergo the test OR 2) Men with good knowledge but negative measure of informed choice attitudes (<22) towards the test, do not undergo the test The Measure of Informed Choice Attitudes survey is administered twice: once directly following the coaching session prior to the patient's appointment, and again following the appointment and the patient's screening decision is recorded during post-appointment.
6 secondary outcomes
Decision Self-Efficacy Scale Score
Time frame: Day 1
Doctor-Patient Communication Survey Score
Time frame: Day 1
Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions Questionnaire (PEPPI) Score
Time frame: Day 1
Change in Decisional Conflict Scale Score
Time frame: Day 1
Satisfaction With Decision Scale Score
Time frame: Day 1
Decisional Regret Scale Survey
Time frame: Month 6
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 23 May 2024.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 33568208Makarov DV, Feuer Z, Ciprut S, Lopez NM, Fagerlin A, Shedlin M, Gold HT, Li H, Lynch G, Warren R, Ubel P, Ravenell JE. Randomized trial of community health worker-led decision coaching to promote shared decision-making for prostate cancer screening among Black male patients and their providers. Trials. 2021 Feb 10;22(1):128. doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05064-4.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Aggregate participant data that underlie the results reported in this article, after de-identification (text, tables, figures, and appendices).
Related trials for Prostate Cancer
Active, not recruiting
Streamlined Geriatric and Oncological Evaluation Based On IC Technology
Breast Cancer, Comorbidities and Coexisting Conditions
Active, not recruitingObservational study
MRI Fusion Biopsy vs. Micro-Ultrasound Guided Biopsy
Prostate Cancer
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
Natural History Study of Early Life Exposures in Agriculture (ELEA)
Prostate Cancer, Leukemia
Not yet recruitingPhase 1/2
STAR0602 With Nivolumab in Non Small Cell Lung Cancer and in Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer, and STAR0602 Alone in Thymic Carcinoma
NSCLC, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Recruiting
Rehabilitation and Sex Therapy to Optimize Recovery After Prostate Cancer Treatment
Prostate Cancer, Urinary Incontinence
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.
Danil Makarov, MD principal investigator
NYU Langone Health
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Education Counseling Session for PSA Screening and General Health Counseling Coaching in people with Prostate Cancer, run by NYU Langone Health 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 7 inclusion and 2 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 23 May 2024. 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?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 23 May 2024). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
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?
Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) Screening Rates (time frame: Up to Month 3). The study lists 4 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 NCT03726320, which also lists 1 linked publication.
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 23 May 2024.