AzTrials
AzTrials

Systemic Lupus ErythematosusIDEALNCT03735238

Implementing the Decision-Aid for Lupus (IDEAL Strategy)

An observational study of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, run by University of Alabama at Birmingham at 1 site in United States.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

The study will attempt to put into practice a shared decision making (SDM) strategy, using an individualized, computerized decision- aid (DA) for Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
What is being tested?
SMILE Computerized Decision-Aid
How many people
1,895 participants
Where
1 siteUnited States
Study dates
15 Dec 2018to 10 Jun 2025
Phase
Observational
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 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Study population: Patients will be enrolled from lupus clinics at 15 sites throughout the country.

Patient Inclusion Criteria:

  • Adults with a diagnosis of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) by a rheumatologist

Patient Exclusion Criteria:

  • No diagnosis of lupus, not English or Spanish speaking, visually impaired, altered mental status

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

United States1 site
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham

    Birmingham, Alabama, 35294

Other trials in United States

About this study

The study will attempt to put into practice a shared decision making (SDM) strategy, using an individualized, computerized decision- aid (DA) for Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Read the detailed description

The proposed study will evaluate methods to implement a shared decision making strategy, using an individualized, computerized decision- aid (DA). The investigators will test the effectiveness of this implementation with 3 strategies in 15 clinics. Formative evaluation strategies will be used to assess needs at each clinic, with key clinic informants participating in semi-structured interviews. The study will enroll patient participants across all 16 sites, who will review the decision aid and be asked a feasibility and acceptability assessment. At the conclusion of the study, key clinic informants, as well as selected patient participants will participate in semi-structured interviews to assess the effectiveness in implementing the DA in the clinic setting.

Being tested
SMILE Computerized Decision-Aid
Keywords
lupus, decision making, implementation, SLE, decision-aid, decision conflict
Medical subject headings
Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • SMILE Computerized Decision-AidOther

    Also called SMILE, Decision-Aid, DA

    SMILE is a computerized decision-aid designed to give lupus patients information about lupus, treatments for lupus available to them, as well as side effects. This will be administered at every lupus clinic session. Every patient will see the SMILE Computerized Decision-Aid at their index baseline clinic visit.

Study groups in NCT03735238
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Lupus PatientsAll adult lupus patients, regardless of if they are having an active flare
Receives: Other: SMILE Computerized Decision-Aid

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Penetration/Reach: Number of Eligible Participants at Each Clinical Site Who Enrolled Divided by the Number of Eligible Participants at Each Clinical Site, Expressed as Overall Percent

    Reach/penetration was measured by calculating a ratio of patients who were enrolled in the implementation project (# of patients who viewed the SLE PtDA) divided by the number of Eligible Participants at Each Clinical Site identified using the electronic medical record (EMR) in the respective clinic (# of eligible patients). The number of eligible patients was based on the average number of patients with a diagnosis of lupus seen in each clinic over the study period (2019-2023).

    Measured: 24 months

Secondary outcomes (13)
  1. Perceived Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) by Clinic Personnel for the SLE Patient Decision-aid

    Clinic personnel's perception of the acceptability of the SLE Patient decision-aid (PtDA), measured using a validated scale with four (4) items with responses ranging from 1 ("completely disagree") to 5 ("completely agree"). The four items will be averaged to create one composite mean scale score (range 1-5), where higher scores reflect perceptions of greater acceptability (i.e., better outcome).

    Measured: 24 months

  2. Perceived DA Implementation Success by Clinic Personnel for the SLE Patient Decision-aid

    Clinic personnel's perception of the implementation success of the SLE Patient decision-aid (PtDA), measured using a validated scale with three (3) items with responses ranging from 1 ("Disagree") to 5 ("Agree"). These three items will be averaged to create one composite mean scale score (range 1-5), where higher scores reflect perceptions of greater implementation success (i.e., better outcome).

    Measured: 24 months

  3. Perceived DA Permanence by Clinic Personnel for the SLE Patient Decision-aid

    Clinic personnel's perception of the permanence of the SLE Patient decision-aid (PtDA), measured using one validated item that is scored ranging from 1 ("Not at all permanent") to 5 ("Extremely permanent"). This item will be examined by itself, where higher scores indicate perceptions of greater permanence of the decision-aid in the clinic (i.e., better outcome).

    Measured: 24 months

  4. Perceived Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) by Clinic Personnel for the SLE Patient Decision-aid

    Clinic personnel's perception of the appropriateness of the SLE Patient decision-aid (PtDA), measured using a validated scale with four (4) items with responses ranging from 1 ("completely disagree") to 5 ("completely agree"). The four items will be averaged to create one composite mean scale score (range 1-5), where higher scores reflect perceptions of greater appropriateness (i.e., better outcome).

    Measured: 24 Months

  5. Perceived Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) by Clinic Personnel for the SLE Patient Decision-aid

    Clinic personnel's perception of the feasibility of the SLE Patient decision-aid (PtDA), measured using a validated scale with four (4) items with responses ranging from 1 ("completely disagree") to 5 ("completely agree"). The four items will be averaged to create one composite mean scale score (range 1-5), where higher scores reflect perceptions of greater feasibility (i.e., better outcome).

    Measured: 24 Months

  6. Patient Decisional Conflict Scale Related to Medication Treatment Decision-making for SLE Medications Including the Immunosuppressive Medications and Biologics After Viewing the SLE Patient Decision-aid

    Decisional conflict was measured using the low literacy version of the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), a well-validated self-administered instrument, after viewing the SLE Patient decision-aid (PtDA). The low literacy version has 10 items with 3 response categories: yes, unsure, and no. Four subscale scores consisting of uncertainty about choice, feeling informed, values clarity, and feeling supported in decision-making were also calculated. DCS (and subscale) scores range from 0 (best) to 100 (worst) and scores >= 25 are consistent with clinically significant residual decisional conflict

    Measured: 6 Months

  7. Patient-reported Interpersonal Processes of Care for Patient-Physician Communication After Viewing the SLE Patient Decision-aid

    The Interpersonal Processes of Care short form (IPC-SF) is a patient-reported, 18-item validated patient-reported patient-physician communication and care processes measure, assessed after viewing the SLE Patient decision-aid (PtDA). Scores range from 18 to 90, with higher scores indicating better patient-physician communication ± care.

    Measured: 6 Months

  8. Patient Satisfaction for SLE Patient Decision-aid

    Patient satisfaction with the ease of the use of the SLE Patient Decision-aid (PtDA) measured using a validated single item scale scored on an ordinal scale from (strongly disagree =1) to (strongly agree = 5). This item will be examined by itself, where higher scores indicate greater patient satisfaction with the decision aid (i.e., better outcome). This is a single item scale, and there are no subscales. It was adapted from another study that assessed satisfaction with iPad or interactive voice response.

    Measured: 6 months

  9. Patient Time for Reviewing SLE Patient Decision-aid

    The SLE Patient Decision-aid (PtDA) review times was expressed in minutes as patient-reported; this was supplemented by study coordinator's record of patient DA review time in-clinic prior to addition of this question. This patient self-reported question was added at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, where shelter-in-place orders led to stopping of in-person outpatient visits and all vists were converted to virtual visits using the phone or the video (Telemedicine).

    Measured: 6 Months

  10. Patient Preparation for Decision Making Assessed After Viewing the SLE Patient Decision-aid

    Patient perception of the effect of the decision-aid on preparing the patient for decision making measured using the Patient Preparation for Decision Making (PDM) , a validated scale consisting of 10 questions scored on an ordinal scale from (not at all =1) to (a great deal = 5. Score ranged 0-100, 100 representing the highest preparation for decision-making. This was assessed after viewing the SLE Patient decision-aid (PtDA).

    Measured: Baseline visit after viewing the SLE Patient Decision-Aid (PtDA)

  11. Patient Acceptability of the SLE Patient Decision-Aid

    The patient acceptability survey is for the assessment of patient acceptability of the SLE Patient Decision-Aid (PtDA). Each question was rated from Poor (1) to Excellent (4). Total score ranged 1-4. DA acceptability refers to rating regarding the comprehensibility of component of the decision-aid, its length, pace, amount of the information, and the balance in presentation of the information about the options available and the overall suitability for decision making.

    Measured: Baseline visit after viewing the SLE PtDA

  12. Patient Feasibility of the SLE Patient Decision-Aid

    The feasibility of the study survey completion and the administration of the lupus decision aid in the busy clinic were assessed with a self-administered patient questionnaire consisting of 4 questions, 2 questions for each, the survey and for the process of viewing ± administering the lupus DA in the busy clinic. Responses ranged from strongly disagree (=1) to strongly agree (=5). Higher scores indicate higher feasibility of the survey and of the SLE Patient Decision-Aid (PtDA) administration respectively.

    Measured: Baseline visit after viewing the SLE PtDA

  13. Number of Participants Who Perceived the SLE Patient Decision-Aid to be Useful

    Patient perception of the SLE Patient Decision-Aid (PtDA) usefulness was aimed at assessing whether people would consider the the SLE PtDA to be useful at present and when they would think back to the time, they had made decisions about lupus treatments in the past (question 1), and whether the information contained in the lupus DA were adequate (question 2). It measured patient response of Yes vs. no to two simple questions. The tool is not yet a validated assessment but was based on our debriefing of lupus patients in the previous randomized study of lupus decision-aid.

    Measured: Baseline visit after viewing the SLE PtDA

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted8 Nov 2018
  2. Study start15 Dec 2018
  3. Primary completion15 Nov 2024
  4. Study completion10 Jun 2025

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Observational
Observational model
Case only
Time perspective
Other
Enrolment
1,895 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT03735238
Sponsor's protocol ID
300002272
Other IDs
CE-1304-6631
Acronym
IDEAL
Status last verified
Sep 2025
First submitted
31 Oct 2018
Last updated
10 Oct 2025
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
No

Publications

  • Singh JA, Hearld LR, Eisen S, Chatham WW, Narain S, Annapureddy N, Kamen DL, Trotter K, Majithia V, Ching CL, Aouhab Z, Venuturupalli S, Wallace DJ, Ramsey-Goldman R, Kim AHJ, McMahon M, Lim SS, Bhairavarasu K, Meara A, Kalunian K, Beasley M. Patient outcomes from implementing a shared decision-making aid for systemic lupus erythematosus: a prospective implementation study. Lancet Rheumatol. 2026 Apr;8(4):e253-e264. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(25)00130-4. Epub 2025 Sep 17.

    PubMed 40975111
  • Singh JA, Beasley TM. Association of Patient Resilience With Patient-Reported Physical and Mental/Emotional Quality of Life in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. J Rheumatol. 2025 Dec 1;52(12):1263-1273. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.2025-0396.

    PubMed 40953958
  • Ribeiro AL, Singla S, Hay-Rollins C, Chronis N, Liao W, Lindsay C, Soriano ER, Chandran V, Letarouilly JG, Mease PJ, Proft F. Deciphering difficult-to-treat psoriatic arthritis: insights from an international survey of patients with psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2025 Aug 1;64(8):4641-4649. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaf207.

    PubMed 40221862
  • Singh JA, Hearld LR, Eisen S, Chatham WW, Narain S, Annapureddy N, Kamen DL, Trotter K, Majithia V, Lee Ching C, Aouhab Z, Venuturupalli S, Wallace DJ, Ramsey-Goldman R, Kim A, McMahon M, Sam Lim S, Bhairavarasu K, Meara A, Kalunian K, Beasley TM; Implementing DEcision-Aid for Lupus in clinics (IDEAL) Consortium. Implementation outcomes of a patient decision-aid in a diverse population with systemic lupus erythematosus in 15 US rheumatology clinics. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2025 Aug 1;64(8):4631-4640. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaf205.

    PubMed 40221856
  • Blanchard EE, Hall AG, Gore E, Jami PY, Karabukayeva A, Hearld LR, Gontarz S, Singh JA. Barriers to and facilitators of sustaining a systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patient decision aid in regular rheumatology outpatient care in the USA. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2025 Jun 1;64(6):3580-3586. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keaf043.

    PubMed 39873723
  • Singh JA, Hearld LR, Hall AG, Beasley TM. Implementing the DEcision-Aid for Lupus (IDEAL): study protocol of a multi-site implementation trial with observational, case study design : Implementing the DEcision-Aid for Lupus. Implement Sci Commun. 2021 Mar 11;2(1):30. doi: 10.1186/s43058-021-00118-9.

    PubMed 33706813

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

An observational study of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, run by University of Alabama at Birmingham 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?

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 10 Oct 2025. 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 10 Oct 2025). 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?

Penetration/Reach: Number of Eligible Participants at Each Clinical Site Who Enrolled Divided by the Number of Eligible Participants at Each Clinical Site, Expressed as Overall Percent (time frame: 24 months). 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 NCT03735238, which also lists 6 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 10 Oct 2025.

Free account

Keep searching with a free account

You’ve used your 3 free searches for this session. Log in or create a free AzTrials account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in