AzTrials
AzTrials

Colo-rectal CancerNCT03867409

The United States Healthy Living Study

A study testing message delivered via virtual technology in people with Colo-rectal Cancer, run by University of Florida 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 purpose of this study is to pilot test the efficacy of a patient-centered, tailored message intervention delivered via virtual human technology for increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening within guidelines. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 50 to 73 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
Conditions the study is for
Colo-rectal Cancer
What is being tested?
message delivered via virtual technology
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
2,105 participants
Where
1 siteUnited States
Study dates
5 Nov 2018to 14 Mar 2019
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 50 to 73 years
  • All sexes
  • Healthy volunteers accepted
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • reside within the United States but outside of Florida
  • speak English
  • are of either black or white racial background.
  • are out-of-guidelines for colorectal cancer screening (>10 years for colonoscopy, >3 years for Cologuard, > 1 year for fecal immunochemical test)

Who cannot join

  • does not meet the above criteria

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

United States1 site

  • University of Florida

    Gainesville, Florida, 32611

Other trials in United States

About this study

The purpose of this study is to pilot test the efficacy of a patient-centered, tailored message intervention delivered via virtual human technology for increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening within guidelines. Although participation is not limited to these groups, the study team is particularly interested in the feasibility of the intervention for reaching racial/ethnic minority and rural patients.

Read the detailed description

The primary goal of the study is to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) morbidity and mortality by increasing CRC screening rates among the at-risk patient community and to reduce racial and geographic (rural vs. urban) disparities in CRC screening and mortality rates. To accomplish this long-term goal, this study aims to develop and test precision messaging tailored to target audiences through development and evaluation of culturally sensitive, interactive messages about CRC screening delivered using VHT. The study will investigate whether interactive, tailored messages contribute to an overall enhancement of knowledge of CRC and screening options by eliciting positive attitudes and behaviors toward FIT screening.

To date, there is no other study that has looked to partner specific message strategies and colorectal cancer screening with an emphasis on racial concordance and modality. As such, the researchers hope to shed new light on how, as health communicators, to more successfully engage target audiences to change attitudes and/or behaviors towards getting screened for colorectal cancer.

Being tested
message delivered via virtual technology
Medical subject headings
Colonic Neoplasms

What participants receive

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

  • message delivered via virtual technologyBehavioural

    The intervention is precision messaging tailored to target audiences through development and evaluation of culturally sensitive, interactive messages about CRC screening delivered using VHT. The study will investigate whether interactive, tailored messages contribute to an overall enhancement of knowledge of CRC and screening options by eliciting positive attitudes and behaviors toward FIT screening.

Study groups in NCT03867409
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Virtual Human (VH) Demographically Concordant - BlackExperimentalParticipants received colorectal cancer screening information using a virtual human that matched their self-reported demographics.
Receives: Behavioral: message delivered via virtual technology
Virtual Human (VH) Demographically Concordant - WhiteExperimentalParticipants received colorectal cancer screening information using a virtual human that matched their self-reported demographics.
Receives: Behavioral: message delivered via virtual technology
Text-Based Demographically Concordant - BlackActive comparatorParticipants received colorectal cancer screening information using a text-based message that matched their self-reported demographics.
Receives: Behavioral: message delivered via virtual technology
Text-Based Demographically Concordant - WhiteActive comparatorParticipants received colorectal cancer screening information using a text-based message that matched their self-reported demographics.
Receives: Behavioral: message delivered via virtual technology

What is being measured

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

  1. Intention to Talk to Doctor About Colorectal Cancer Screening

    Measure: Intention to talk to doctor about colorectal cancer screening. Construct: Behavioral intention to communicate Item: The virtual appointment made me want to discuss colon cancer screening options with my doctor.

    Scale: 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Mean scores near 1 indicate a lower intention to talk to a healthcare professional about colorectal cancer screening. Mean scores near 5 indicate a high intention to talk to a healthcare professional about colorectal cancer screening.

    No subscales

    Measured: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour

  2. Intention to Screen for Colorectal Cancer

    Measure: Intention to Screen for Colorectal Cancer Item: I want to get screened for colorectal cancer. Scale: 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Mean scores near 1 indicate a lower intention to get screened for colorectal cancer. Mean scores near 5 indicate a higher intention to get screened for colorectal cancer.

    Construct: Behavioral intention to screen No subscales

    Measured: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour

  3. Intention to Talk About Screening With FIT

    Measure: Intention to Talk about Screening with FIT Item: I will talk to my healthcare provider about colon cancer screening with FIT.

    Scale: 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Mean scores closer to 1 indicate a lower intention to screen with FIT. Mean scores closer to 5 indicate a high intention to screen with FIT.

    Construct: Behavioral intention to screen with FIT No subscales

    Measured: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour

  4. Intention to Recommend Intervention (ALEX)

    Measure: Intention to Recommend Intervention (ALEX) Item: Imagine you received a link to ALEX from your healthcare provider. Would you like to share it by sending the link to someone? Scale: 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Mean scores near 1 indicate a lower intention to recommend ALEX. Mean scores near 5 indicate a high intention to recommend ALEX.

    Construct: Behavioral intention to recommend ALEX No subscales

    Measured: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour

  5. Source Credibility

    Measure:

    Construct: Source Credibility

    Scale description: An 18-item unidimensional 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Mean scores near 1 indicate that information provided by ALEX was perceived as not credible. Mean scores near 5 indicate the information provided by ALEX was perceived as highly credible. No subscales. The scale includes the following items:

    1. Intelligent-Unintelligent-Intelligent
    2. Untrained- Trained
    3. Doesn't care about me-Cares about me
    4. Dishonest- Honest
    5. Doesn't have my interests at heart-Has my interests at heart
    6. Untrustworthy-Trustworthy
    7. Inexpert -Expert
    8. Self-centered-Not self-centered
    9. Not concerned with me-Concerned with me
    10. Dishonorable-Honorable
    11. Uninformed-Informed
    12. Immoral-Moral
    13. Incompetent-Competent
    14. Unethical-Ethical
    15. Sensitive-Insensitive
    16. Stupid-Bright
    17. Phony-Genuine
    18. Not understanding-Understanding

    Measured: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour

  6. Argument Strength

    Construct: Argument Strength; Description: Argument Strength is a 9-item unidimensional 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree/5=strongly agree) measuring participants' perceptions of the strength of the argument about colon cancer screening. Mean scores near 1 indicate that ALEX's argument about colon cancer screening was perceived as not strong. Mean scores near 5 indicate that ALEX's argument about colon cancer screening was perceived as very strong. No subscales.

    1. The reason ALEX gives me for screening with FIT is believable
    2. The reason ALEX gives me for screening with FIT is convincing
    3. The reason ALEX gives me for screening with FIT is important to me
    4. ALEX helps me feel confident about how best to screen with FIT
    5. ALEX would help my friends screen with FIT
    6. ALEX encouraged me to screen with FIT
    7. ALEX encouraged me to avoid screening.
    8. I agree with ALEX's reasoning for screening
    9. ALEX gives a strong reason for screening with FIT

    Measured: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour

  7. Homophily

    Construct: Internal Homophily

    Scale: an 8-item unidimensional 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree/5=strongly agree) measuring participants' perceptions of their similarity to ALEX's characteristics. Mean scores near 1 indicate participants perceive strong dissimilarity to ALEX's characteristics. Mean scores near 5 indicate participants perceive strong similarity to ALEX's characteristics. No subscales. Items:

    1. Doesn't think like me-thinks like me
    2. Doesn't behave like me-Behaves like me
    3. Is different from me-Is similar to me
    4. Unlike me-Is like me
    5. Has a background different to mine-Has a background similar from mine
    6. Has morals unlike mine-Has morals like mine
    7. Looks different from me-Looks similar to me
    8. Is a different body size than I am-Has the same body size as I do

    Measured: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour

  8. Usability of App

    Construct: Usability of App; Description: Usability is a 4-item unidimensional 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree/5=strongly agree). This scale measures participants' experience using the ALEX app. Mean scores near 1 indicate a negative experience using the ALEX app. Mean scores near 5 indicate a positive experience using the ALEX app. No subscales. Items:

    1. Enjoyable
    2. Easy to use
    3. Awkward
    4. Uncomfortable

    Measured: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour

  9. Perceived Severity

    Construct: Perceived Severity; Description: A 4-item unidimensional 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree/5=strongly agree) measuring participants' perceptions regarding the likelihood of developing colon cancer at some point in their lives. Mean scores near 1 indicate low severity, while mean scores near 5 indicate high severity. No subscales. Items:

    1. I am at risk for getting colon cancer in my lifetime.
    2. It is possible that I will get colon cancer in my lifetime.
    3. I am susceptible to getting colon cancer in my lifetime.
    4. It is likely that I will get colon cancer in my lifetime.

    Measured: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour

  10. Perceived Susceptibility

    Construct: Perceived Susceptibility Description: Perceived Susceptibility is a 4-item unidimensional 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree/5=strongly agree) assessing participants' perceptions regarding being susceptible to developing colon cancer at some point in their lives. Mean scores near 1 indicate low susceptibility, while mean scores near 5 indicate high susceptibility. No subscales. Items:

    1. I am at risk for getting colon cancer in my lifetime.
    2. It is possible that I will get colon cancer in my lifetime.
    3. I am susceptible to getting colon cancer in my lifetime.
    4. It is likely that I will get colon cancer in my lifetime.

    Measured: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour

  11. Response Efficacy

    Construct: Response Efficacy Description: A 4-item unidimensional 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree/5=strongly agree) measured participants' perceptions of the effectiveness of FIT screening in detecting and preventing colon cancer. Mean scores near 1 indicate low perceived efficacy, while mean scores near 5 indicate high perceived efficacy. No subscales. Items:

    1. FIT screening leads to early detection if something is wrong.
    2. FIT screening leads to the detection of small abnormalities.
    3. FIT screening will help me find cancer early.
    4. FIT screening will decrease my chances of dying from colon cancer.

    Measured: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour

  12. Self-Efficacy

    Construct: Self-Efficacy Description: A 12-item unidimensional 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree/5=strongly agree) measuring participants' confidence in completing FIT screening or a colonoscopy. Mean scores near 1 indicate low self-efficacy, while scores near 5 indicate high self-efficacy. No subscales. Items:

    1. I am confident that I can use the FIT
    2. Arranging my schedule to use the FIT is an easy thing to do
    3. FIT screening would be easy for me to do
    4. It would be easy for me to take a stool sample
    5. It would be easy for me to mail my kit back
    6. It would be easy for me to use all the tools in the kit
    7. I know how to collect a stool sample
    8. I am confident that I can get a colonoscopy
    9. Arranging my schedule to get a colonoscopy is an easy thing to do
    10. Finding time to get a colonoscopy would be difficult for me to do
    11. Screening for colon cancer with a colonoscopy would be easy for me to do
    12. It would be easy for me to get a colonoscopy

    Measured: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour

  13. Perceived Barriers

    Construct: Perceived Barriers Description: A 6-item unidimensional 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree/5=strongly agree) assessed participants' perceived obstacles to undergoing FIT screening. Mean scores closer to 1 indicate fewer perceived barriers. Mean scores closer to 5 indicate more perceived barriers. No subscales. Items:

    1. My doctor would never recommend the FIT.
    2. The FIT would be too expensive.
    3. The FIT would be too embarrassing.
    4. Preparation for the FIT is too hard.
    5. The FIT takes too much time.
    6. The FIT is difficult because it is too hard to understand all the instructions.

    Measured: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour

  14. Perceived Benefits

    Construct: Perceived Benefits Description: A 4-item unidimensional 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree/5=strongly agree) measured participants' perceptions of the benefits of FIT screening. Mean scores near 1 indicate low perceived benefits. Mean scores near 5 indicate high perceived benefits. No subscales. Items:

    1. The FIT will decrease my chances of dying from colon cancer.
    2. The FIT will help me not worry as much about colon cancer.
    3. I believe that if I had a normal screening test result, I wouldn't have to worry about developing colon cancer.
    4. I believe that when colon cancer is found early, it can be cured.

    Measured: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour

  15. Comparative Risk Feedback

    Construct: Comparative Risk Feedback Description: A single-item unidimensional measure assessing participants' perceived risk of developing colon cancer compared to others on a 7-point Likert Scale. Mean scores near 1 indicate low perceived comparative risk. Mean scores near 7 indicate a high perceived risk of developing colon cancer compared to others. Item:

    1. Compared to the average person your age, gender, and race, how would you rate your chances of developing colon cancer in your life?

    Measured: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour

  16. Cancer Information Overload

    Construct: Cancer Information Overload Description: A 4-item unidimensional 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree/5=strongly agree) measuring participants' perceptions regarding the amount and clarity of cancer-related information. Mean scores near 1 indicate lower overload. Mean scores near 5 indicate higher overload. No subscales. Items:

    1. There are so many different recommendations about preventing cancer, it's hard to know which ones to follow.
    2. There is not enough time to do all of the things recommended to prevent cancer.
    3. It has gotten to the point where I don't even care to hear new information about cancer.
    4. I feel overwhelmed by the amount of cancer information I am supposed to know.

    Measured: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour

  17. Perceived Message Relevance

    Construct: Perceived Message Relevance Description: A 6-item unidimensional 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree/5=strongly agree) measuring participants' perceptions of how relevant and personalized the health message felt to them. Mean scores near 1 indicate low relevance. Mean scores near 5 indicate high relevance. No subscales. Items:

    1. The message seemed to be written personally for me.
    2. The message was very relevant to my situation.
    3. The message was applicable to me.
    4. The message was very customized to me.
    5. This message was manipulative.
    6. This message was misleading.

    Measured: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour

  18. Trust in Physician

    Construct: Trust in Physician Description: An 11-item 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree/5=strongly agree) measuring physician trust. Mean scores near 1 indicate low trust, while scores near 5 indicate high trust. No subscales. Items:

    1. I doubt that my doctor really cares about me as a person
    2. My doctor usually puts my needs first
    3. I trust my doctor so much I always try to follow his/her advice
    4. If my doctor tells me something is so, then it must be true
    5. I sometimes distrust my doctor's opinion
    6. I trust my doctor's judgments about my medical care
    7. I feel my doctor does not do everything he/she should about my medical care
    8. I trust my doctor to put my medical needs above all other considerations
    9. My doctor is well qualified to manage my medical problems
    10. I trust my doctor to tell me if a mistake was made about my treatment
    11. I sometimes worry that my doctor may not keep the information we discuss totally private

    Measured: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour

  19. Patient-Provider Communication

    Construct: Patient-Provider Communication Description: A 5-item unidimensional 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree/5=strongly agree) measuring participants' perceptions of how well their doctor communicates with them. Mean scores near 1 indicate poor communication. Mean scores near 5 indicate good communication. No subscales. Items:

    1. I receive enough understandable information from my doctor/healthcare provider to make good decisions about my health.
    2. I feel rushed during visits.
    3. My doctor/healthcare provider involves me in decisions about my health care treatment.
    4. I feel uncomfortable asking my doctor for tests or information if he/she doesn't mention it.
    5. My doctor/healthcare provider understands my health needs.

    Measured: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour

  20. Patient General Health

    Construct: Patient General Health Description: A 3-item unidimensional measure assessing participants' overall health and pain levels on 5-point Likert Scales. Mean scores near 1 indicate low general health. Mean scores near 5 indicate high general health. Items:

    1. In general, would you say your health is: (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)
    2. How much bodily pain have you had during the past 4 weeks? (1= Very severe, 5= None)
    3. During the past 4 weeks, how much did pain interfere with your normal work (including both work outside the home and housework)? (1 = Extremely, 5= Not at all)

    Measured: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour

  21. Health Literacy (eHeals)

    Construct: Health Literacy (eHeals) Description: An 8-item unidimensional 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree/5=strongly agree) measuring participants' confidence in using the internet for health-related information. Mean scores near 1 indicate low health literacy. Mean scores near 5 indicate high health literacy. No subscales. Items:

    1. I know how to find helpful health resources on the Internet.
    2. I know how to use the Internet to answer my health questions.
    3. I know what health resources are available on the Internet.
    4. I know where to find helpful health resources on the Internet.
    5. I know how to use the health information I find on the Internet to help me.
    6. I have the skills I need to evaluate the health resources I find on the Internet.
    7. I can tell high quality from low quality health resources on the Internet.
    8. I feel confident in using information from the Internet to make health decisions.

    Measured: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour

  22. Interpersonal Distance

    Construct: Interpersonal Distance Description: A 4-item unidimensional 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree/5=strongly agree) that measures participants' perceptions of the virtual human's presence. Mean scores near 1 indicate low perceived presence. Mean scores near 5 indicate high perceived presence. No subscales. Items:

    1. I perceive that I am in the presence of Alex in the room with me.
    2. I feel that Alex is aware of my presence.
    3. The thought that Alex is not a real person crosses my mind often.
    4. I perceive Alex as being only a computerized image, not as a real person.

    Measured: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour

  23. Attitudes Towards Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) - Sad

    Construct: Attitudes towards Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) - Sad

    Description: We measured participant's emotional attitudes of sadness towards FIT using single-items on a 5-point Likert scale (1=not at all, 5=very much). Mean scores near 1 indicate little to no feelings of sadness regarding FIT screening. Mean scores near 5 indicate strong feelings of sadness regarding FIT screening. Item:

    1. How much sadness would you feel if a doctor asked you to get screened for colon cancer using FIT?

    Measured: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour

  24. Attitudes Towards Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) - Worried

    Construct: Attitudes towards Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) - Worried

    Description: We measured participant's emotional attitudes of worry towards FIT using single-items on a 5-point Likert scale (1=not at all, 5=very much). Mean scores near 1 indicate little to no feelings of worry regarding FIT screening. Mean scores near 5 indicate strong feelings of worry regarding FIT screening. Item:

    1. How much worried would you feel if a doctor asked you to get screened for colon cancer using FIT?

    Measured: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour

  25. Attitudes Towards Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) - Relieved

    Construct: Attitudes towards Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) - Relieved Description: We measured participant's emotional attitudes of relief towards FIT using single-items on a 5-point Likert scale (1=not at all, 5=very much). Mean scores near 1 indicate little to no feelings of relief regarding FIT screening. Mean scores near 5 indicate strong feelings of relief regarding FIT screening. Item:

    1. How relieved would you feel if a doctor asked you to get screened for colon cancer using FIT?

    Measured: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour

  26. Attitudes Towards Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) - Tense

    Construct: Attitudes towards Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) - Tense

    Description: We measured participant's emotional attitudes of tensity towards FIT using single-items on a 5-point Likert scale (1=not at all, 5=very much). Mean scores near 1 indicate little to no feelings of tenseness regarding FIT screening. Mean scores near 5 indicate strong feelings of tenseness regarding FIT screening. Item:

    1. How tense would you feel if a doctor asked you to get screened for colon cancer using FIT?

    Measured: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour

  27. Attitudes Towards Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) - Anxious

    Construct: Attitudes towards Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) - Anxious

    Description: We measured participant's emotional attitudes of anxiety towards FIT using single-items on a 5-point Likert scale (1=not at all, 5=very much). Mean scores near 1 indicate little to no feelings of anxiousness regarding FIT screening. Mean scores near 5 indicate strong feelings of anxiousness regarding FIT screening. Item:

    1. How anxious would you feel if a doctor asked you to get screened for colon cancer using FIT?

    Measured: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour

  28. Attitudes Towards Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) - Calm

    Construct: Attitudes towards Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) - Calm

    Description: We measured participant's emotional attitudes of calmness towards FIT using single-items on a 5-point Likert scale (1=not at all, 5=very much). Mean scores near 1 indicate little to no feelings of calmness regarding FIT screening. Mean scores near 5 indicate strong feelings of calmness regarding FIT screening. Item:

    1. How calm would you feel if a doctor asked you to get screened for colon cancer using FIT?

    Measured: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour

  29. Attitudes Towards Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) - Afraid

    Construct: Attitudes towards Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) - Afraid

    Description: We measured participant's emotional attitudes of fear towards FIT using single-items on a 5-point Likert scale (1=not at all, 5=very much). Mean scores near 1 indicate little to no feelings of fear regarding FIT screening. Mean scores near 5 indicate strong feelings of fear regarding FIT screening. Item:

    1. How afraid would you feel if a doctor asked you to get screened for colon cancer using FIT?

    Measured: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour

Timeline

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

  1. First posted8 Mar 2019
  2. Study start5 Nov 2018
  3. Primary completion14 Mar 2019
  4. Study completion14 Mar 2019

Resources

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
Single blind
Who is masked
Participant
Enrolment
2,105 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT03867409
Sponsor's protocol ID
IRB201801473 -N
Other IDs
5R01CA207689-02, OCR19177
Status last verified
May 2025
First submitted
1 Mar 2019
Last updated
13 May 2025
Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
No

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing message delivered via virtual technology in people with Colo-rectal Cancer, run by University of Florida 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 4 inclusion and 1 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 13 May 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 13 May 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?

Intention to Talk to Doctor About Colorectal Cancer Screening (time frame: immediately after the intervention, up to 1 hour). The study lists 29 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 NCT03867409.

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 13 May 2025.

AzTrials uses cookies for analytics and advertising. You can accept or reject them; the site works either way. Privacy Policy.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in