DepressionNCT05091593
Intervention for Rural Cancer Patients
A study testing Stepped collaborative care intervention in people with Depression and Quality of Life, run by University of Pittsburgh at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
In an effort to reduce rural-urban disparities and improve the quality of cancer care for these patients, the objectives of this study will be to: (1) adapt the intervention to maximize effectiveness for rural, low-income patients, (2) test the effectiveness of the adapted intervention, and (3) prepare for… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 21 to 100 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Depression, Quality of Life, Social Support
- What is being tested?
- Stepped collaborative care intervention
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 0 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 1 Jun 2026to 1 Dec 2031
- 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 21 to 100 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients:
- biopsy and/or radiograph proven diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder carcinoma or breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer with liver metastases with a life expectancy of at least one year;
- age >21 years;
- no evidence of thought disorder, delusions, or active suicidal ideation is observed or reported.
- Caregivers:
- a spouse or cohabitating intimate partner of an advanced cancer patient being evaluated at the UPMC's Liver Cancer Center; and
- age >21 years
Who cannot join
- Patients:
- age < 21 years,
- lack of fluency in English,
- evidence of thought disorder, delusions, hallucinations, or suicidal ideation.
- Caregivers:
- lack of fluency in English; and
- evidence of thought disorder, delusions, hallucinations, or suicidal ideation.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
University of Pittsburgh Medical Centers
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15213
About this study
Official title: A Hybrid Type I Randomized Effectiveness-Implementation Trial of Remote Treatment of Depression in Rural Community Cancer Centers
In an effort to reduce rural-urban disparities and improve the quality of cancer care for these patients, the objectives of this study will be to: (1) adapt the intervention to maximize effectiveness for rural, low-income patients, (2) test the effectiveness of the adapted intervention, and (3) prepare for implementation of the intervention in rural, low-income communities.
Read the detailed description
The purpose of the study is to reduce rural-urban disparities and improve the quality of cancer care for these patients:
(Aim 1): By using mixed methods, investigators will adapt the stepped collaborative care intervention to address the contextual needs of patients diagnosed with comorbid cancer and depression living in rural, low-income communities. Using face-to-face qualitative interviews with 30 patients diagnosed with cancer and quantitative data from our past trial, investigators will adapt the stepped collaborative care intervention for patients diagnosed with cancer from rural, low-income communities. For all quantitative data, the frequency distributions of study variables will be examined prior to statistical analyses to provide descriptive data and to identify departures from normality. If nonlinearity is detected, a transformation will be performed using the Box-Cox transformation, which finds the optimal relationship between variables. All measures have established reliability and validity similar to that from which the study sample will be drawn; however, the reliabilities of scales will be assessed using Cronbach's. Thorough exploratory data analyses will be performed to ascertain data characteristics and to screen for anomalies (i.e., outliers). The preliminary exploration of the data will be used to: (1) examine univariate and bivariate distributions; (2) identify any imbalances between treatment groups on baseline characteristics; (3) investigate the magnitude of the associations between the dependent variables and the potential covariates; (4) determine the internal consistency reliabilities of the measurement scales using Cronbach's alpha; and (5) verify the statistical assumptions of the planned primary analyses. If assumptions are violated, then alternative procedures such as data transformations or more robust statistical methods will be considered. Missing data will be examined using available data on subject characteristics. Logistic regression models will be created with SAS PROC LOGISTIC to compare the characteristics of subjects who remained in the study versus those who dropped out. If data are determined to be missing at random, likelihood estimation procedures available in SAS PROC MIXED will produce unbiased estimates and allow the retention of subjects with missing data on outcomes. If data are determined to be not missing at random, pattern mixture or selection modeling will be used to investigate attrition. If necessary, multiple imputation (SAS PROC MI) will be used to impute missing values for covariates.
(Aim 2): To test, in a randomized controlled trial, the adapted stepped collaborative care intervention for 242 patients diagnosed with comorbid cancer and depression living in rural, low-income communities. Primary hypotheses are that patients randomized to the stepped collaborative care intervention will report clinically meaningful (0.40 or greater effect size) improvements in depression and Quality of Life (QoL) at 6- and 12-months when compared to patients randomized to the screening and referral arm. The secondary hypotheses are that patients randomized to the stepped collaborative care intervention will report clinically meaningful (0.30 or greater effect size) improvements in sleep quality, perceived stress, and social support when compared to the screening and referral arm. The expectation is that caregivers of patients randomized to the intervention arm will have reductions in stress and depression when compared to caregivers of patients randomized to the screening and referral arm. Further exploration will be done of the beneficial effects of the stepped collaborative care intervention on survival.
(Aim 3): To examine the cost-effectiveness of the stepped collaborative care intervention for 242 patients diagnosed with cancer and depression. The stepped collaborative care intervention is expected to be cost-effective compared to the screening and referral arm from the health system perspective in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year based on established benchmarks for cost-effectiveness. Given the low cost of the intervention and our preliminary data showing reductions in complications and healthcare utilization, there is a high chance that the intervention is, on average, cost saving.
(Aim 4): Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Science (CFIR), The acceptability, feasibility and actionable factors within the rural context that influence the delivery of the stepped collaborative care intervention will be assessed.. Using mixed methods, guided by the CFIR framework, Surveys will be administered and qualitative interviews performed with patients, caregivers, providers, clinical and research staff after testing the screening and adapted intervention to further refine and inform future implementation in rural, low-income communities.
In terms of relevant prior knowledge and gaps in current knowledge, over 60 million people live in rural communities in the United States. Those who develop cancer are diagnosed later, at more advanced stages, with greater physical comorbidities, poorer quality of life (QoL), and have fewer options for treatment and resources to cope with a diagnosis of cancer when compared to those living in urban communities. As a result, they suffer from greater cancer-related distress and depression. Patients diagnosed with cancer from rural Appalachia were more likely to meet the criteria for clinical levels of distress compared to 27.4% of non-rural cancer patients. Investigators have also observed higher rates of depression in patients from rural, low-income areas when compared to their urban counterparts in Appalachia. Despite the high rates of depression, people who live in rural communities are 47% less likely to receive mental health treatment and 72% less likely to receive specialized mental health treatment when compared to those living in urban communities. Depression results in poorer QoL, decreased adherence to cancer treatments, and increased risk of mortality. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments that have been effective in people from urban communities have not been effective in those living in rural, low-income communities. A stepped collaborative care intervention was designed and tested for socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with comorbid cancer and depression. While the intervention was effective for patients from urban, low-income communities, subgroup analyses revealed the intervention was not effective in patients from rural, low-income communities. While preliminary, there is the belief that cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) may not be culturally sensitive in rural, low-income patients. In addition, predictors of depression for these patients included poor sleep, high levels of perceived stress, and lack of social support. The proposal is to adapt the intervention using problem solving therapy, rather than CBT; provide resources to reduce financial stress; and incorporate stress management, support groups, and treatment of sleep problems in the novel intervention. In effort to reduce rural-urban disparities and improve the quality of cancer care, the objectives of this study will be to: (1) adapt the stepped collaborative care intervention to maximize effectiveness for rural, low-income patients, (2) test the effectiveness of the adapted intervention, and (3) prepare for implementation of the intervention in rural, low-income communities.
- Conditions
- Depression, Quality of Life, Social Support, Sleep, Stress
- Being tested
- Stepped collaborative care intervention, Enhanced Usual Care
- Medical subject headings
- Depression
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Stepped collaborative care interventionBehavioural
Also called Treatment
Using website that was specifically designed for advanced cancer patient, collaborative with treatment from health professional.
Enhanced Usual CareBehavioural
Also called Control
Usual care from health providers
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Stepped collaborative care intervention | Experimental | The 'Stepped Collaborative Care Intervention' includes at least biweekly contact from a care coordinator by phone and face to face visits occurring approximately every 2 months, and 24 hour 7 day a week access to a website that was specifically designed during the pilot study for advanced cancer patients from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. Receives: Behavioral: Stepped collaborative care intervention |
| Enhanced Usual Care | Active comparator | Patients randomized to the 'Enhanced Usual Care' arm receive their usual care from their medical team. However, if the patient scores in the clinical range on one or more of the three symptoms s/he will receive education about the symptom and be referred to the appropriate health care provider for further treatment in their community. The care coordinator will follow up with the patient after 3 weeks to assess barriers to treatment and assist further with accessing treatment if needed. Receives: Behavioral: Enhanced Usual Care |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D)F
Measure of depression questionnaire- The score is the sum of the 20 questions. Possible range is 0-60. A score of 16 points or more is considered depressed.
Measured: Change from baseline in depression at 6 months
Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D)
Measure of depression questionnaire - The score is the sum of the 20 questions. Possible range is 0-60. A score of 16 points or more is considered depressed.
Measured: Change from baseline in depression at 12 months
EuroQOL-5 Dimension Questionnaire (EQ-5D)
Measure of quality of life questionnaire - scale is numbered from 0 to 100. 100 means the best health the participant can imagine. 0 means the worst health the participant can imagine.
Measured: Change from baseline in quality of life at 6 months
EuroQOL-5 Dimension Questionnaire (EQ-5D)
Measure of quality of life questionnaire - scale is numbered from 0 to 100. 100 means the best health the participant can imagine. 0 means the worst health the participant can imagine.
Measured: Change from baseline in quality of life at 12 months
Secondary outcomes (6)
Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL)
A 12-item measure of perceptions for three dimensions of perceived social support.(Appraisal Support, Belonging Support, Tangible Support) Each dimension is measured by 4 items on a 4-point scale ranging from "Definitely True" to "Definitely False".
Measured: Change from baseline of interpersonal support evaluation at 6 months
Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL)
A 12-item measure of perceptions for three dimensions of perceived social support.(Appraisal Support, Belonging Support, Tangible Support) Each dimension is measured by 4 items on a 4-point scale ranging from "Definitely True" to "Definitely False".
Measured: Change from baseline of interpersonal support evaluation at 12 months
Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI)
A measure of sleep quality where respondents are asked to indicate how frequently they have experienced certain sleep difficulties over the past month and to rate their overall sleep quality. Scores for each question range from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating more acute sleep disturbances.
Measured: Change from baseline in improved sleep latency at 6 months.
Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI)
A measure of sleep quality where respondents are asked to indicate how frequently they have experienced certain sleep difficulties over the past month and to rate their overall sleep quality. Scores for each question range from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating more acute sleep disturbances.
Measured: Change from baseline in improved sleep latency at 12 months.
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)
This questionnaire about stress is comprised of 14 items intended to measure how unpredictable, uncontrollable, and overloaded individuals find their life circumstances. Individuals rate items on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 - "Never" to 4 - "Very often." Scores range from 0-56, with higher scores indicating greater perceived stress.
Measured: Change from baseline in perceived stress at 6 months
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)
This questionnaire about stress is comprised of 14 items intended to measure how unpredictable, uncontrollable, and overloaded individuals find their life circumstances. Individuals rate items on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 - "Never" to 4 - "Very often." Scores range from 0-56, with higher scores indicating greater perceived stress.
Measured: Change from baseline in perceived stress at 12 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted25 Oct 2021
- Study start1 Jun 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completion1 Sep 2030 (estimated)
- Study completion1 Dec 2031 (estimated)
Why it stopped: No funding
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for DepressionStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of PittsburghThe 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
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Randomized controlled trial
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Pittsburgh
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Cancer Institute (NCI)
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Jennifer Steel, University of Pittsburgh
- Investigators
- Jennifer L Steel, PhD, Principal investigator, UPMC Department of Surgery
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05091593
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- STUDY21060157
- Status last verified
- Feb 2025
- First submitted
- 12 Oct 2021
- Last updated
- 28 Feb 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Study protocol, statistical analyses plan and all de-identified data collected during the trial may be shared with appropriately credentialed investigators who request data directly from the Primary Investigator: Jennifer Steel, PhD, University of Pittsburgh Physicians Department of Surgery Kaufmann Medical Building, Suite 601 3471 Fifth Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15213 412-692-2041 steejl@upmc.edu.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 28 Feb 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Hybrid Type I Randomized Effectiveness-Implementation Trial of Remote Treatment of Depression in Rural Community Cancer Centers
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05091593
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- STUDY21060157
- Conditions
- Depression, Quality of Life, Social Support, Sleep, Stress
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- WithdrawnReason stopped: No funding
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of PittsburghUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Cancer Institute (NCI)
- Study start
- 1 Jun 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 1 Sep 2030 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 1 Dec 2031 (estimated)
- First posted
- 25 Oct 2021 (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.
In an effort to reduce rural-urban disparities and improve the quality of cancer care for these patients, the objectives of this study will be to: (1) adapt the intervention to maximize effectiveness for rural, low-income patients, (2) test the effectiveness of the adapted intervention, and (3) prepare for implementation of the intervention in rural, low-income communities.
Detailed description
The purpose of the study is to reduce rural-urban disparities and improve the quality of cancer care for these patients:
(Aim 1): By using mixed methods, investigators will adapt the stepped collaborative care intervention to address the contextual needs of patients diagnosed with comorbid cancer and depression living in rural, low-income communities. Using face-to-face qualitative interviews with 30 patients diagnosed with cancer and quantitative data from our past trial, investigators will adapt the stepped collaborative care intervention for patients diagnosed with cancer from rural, low-income communities. For all quantitative data, the frequency distributions of study variables will be examined prior to statistical analyses to provide descriptive data and to identify departures from normality. If nonlinearity is detected, a transformation will be performed using the Box-Cox transformation, which finds the optimal relationship between variables. All measures have established reliability and validity similar to that from which the study sample will be drawn; however, the reliabilities of scales will be assessed using Cronbach's. Thorough exploratory data analyses will be performed to ascertain data characteristics and to screen for anomalies (i.e., outliers). The preliminary exploration of the data will be used to: (1) examine univariate and bivariate distributions; (2) identify any imbalances between treatment groups on baseline characteristics; (3) investigate the magnitude of the associations between the dependent variables and the potential covariates; (4) determine the internal consistency reliabilities of the measurement scales using Cronbach's alpha; and (5) verify the statistical assumptions of the planned primary analyses. If assumptions are violated, then alternative procedures such as data transformations or more robust statistical methods will be considered. Missing data will be examined using available data on subject characteristics. Logistic regression models will be created with SAS PROC LOGISTIC to compare the characteristics of subjects who remained in the study versus those who dropped out. If data are determined to be missing at random, likelihood estimation procedures available in SAS PROC MIXED will produce unbiased estimates and allow the retention of subjects with missing data on outcomes. If data are determined to be not missing at random, pattern mixture or selection modeling will be used to investigate attrition. If necessary, multiple imputation (SAS PROC MI) will be used to impute missing values for covariates.
(Aim 2): To test, in a randomized controlled trial, the adapted stepped collaborative care intervention for 242 patients diagnosed with comorbid cancer and depression living in rural, low-income communities. Primary hypotheses are that patients randomized to the stepped collaborative care intervention will report clinically meaningful (0.40 or greater effect size) improvements in depression and Quality of Life (QoL) at 6- and 12-months when compared to patients randomized to the screening and referral arm. The secondary hypotheses are that patients randomized to the stepped collaborative care intervention will report clinically meaningful (0.30 or greater effect size) improvements in sleep quality, perceived stress, and social support when compared to the screening and referral arm. The expectation is that caregivers of patients randomized to the intervention arm will have reductions in stress and depression when compared to caregivers of patients randomized to the screening and referral arm. Further exploration will be done of the beneficial effects of the stepped collaborative care intervention on survival.
(Aim 3): To examine the cost-effectiveness of the stepped collaborative care intervention for 242 patients diagnosed with cancer and depression. The stepped collaborative care intervention is expected to be cost-effective compared to the screening and referral arm from the health system perspective in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year based on established benchmarks for cost-effectiveness. Given the low cost of the intervention and our preliminary data showing reductions in complications and healthcare utilization, there is a high chance that the intervention is, on average, cost saving.
(Aim 4): Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Science (CFIR), The acceptability, feasibility and actionable factors within the rural context that influence the delivery of the stepped collaborative care intervention will be assessed.. Using mixed methods, guided by the CFIR framework, Surveys will be administered and qualitative interviews performed with patients, caregivers, providers, clinical and research staff after testing the screening and adapted intervention to further refine and inform future implementation in rural, low-income communities.
In terms of relevant prior knowledge and gaps in current knowledge, over 60 million people live in rural communities in the United States. Those who develop cancer are diagnosed later, at more advanced stages, with greater physical comorbidities, poorer quality of life (QoL), and have fewer options for treatment and resources to cope with a diagnosis of cancer when compared to those living in urban communities. As a result, they suffer from greater cancer-related distress and depression. Patients diagnosed with cancer from rural Appalachia were more likely to meet the criteria for clinical levels of distress compared to 27.4% of non-rural cancer patients. Investigators have also observed higher rates of depression in patients from rural, low-income areas when compared to their urban counterparts in Appalachia. Despite the high rates of depression, people who live in rural communities are 47% less likely to receive mental health treatment and 72% less likely to receive specialized mental health treatment when compared to those living in urban communities. Depression results in poorer QoL, decreased adherence to cancer treatments, and increased risk of mortality. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments that have been effective in people from urban communities have not been effective in those living in rural, low-income communities. A stepped collaborative care intervention was designed and tested for socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with comorbid cancer and depression. While the intervention was effective for patients from urban, low-income communities, subgroup analyses revealed the intervention was not effective in patients from rural, low-income communities. While preliminary, there is the belief that cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) may not be culturally sensitive in rural, low-income patients. In addition, predictors of depression for these patients included poor sleep, high levels of perceived stress, and lack of social support. The proposal is to adapt the intervention using problem solving therapy, rather than CBT; provide resources to reduce financial stress; and incorporate stress management, support groups, and treatment of sleep problems in the novel intervention. In effort to reduce rural-urban disparities and improve the quality of cancer care, the objectives of this study will be to: (1) adapt the stepped collaborative care intervention to maximize effectiveness for rural, low-income patients, (2) test the effectiveness of the adapted intervention, and (3) prepare for implementation of the intervention in rural, low-income communities.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Randomized controlled trial
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Stepped collaborative care intervention | Experimental | Behavioral: Stepped collaborative care interventionThe 'Stepped Collaborative Care Intervention' includes at least biweekly contact from a care coordinator by phone and face to face visits occurring approximately every 2 months, and 24 hour 7 day a week access to a website that was specifically designed during the pilot study for advanced cancer patients from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. |
| Enhanced Usual Care | Active comparator | Behavioral: Enhanced Usual CarePatients randomized to the 'Enhanced Usual Care' arm receive their usual care from their medical team. However, if the patient scores in the clinical range on one or more of the three symptoms s/he will receive education about the symptom and be referred to the appropriate health care provider for further treatment in their community. The care coordinator will follow up with the patient after 3 weeks to assess barriers to treatment and assist further with accessing treatment if needed. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 21 to 100 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (7 listed)
- biopsy and/or radiograph proven diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder carcinoma or breast, ovarian, or colorectal cancer with liver metastases with a life expectancy of at least one year;
- age >21 years;
- no evidence of thought disorder, delusions, or active suicidal ideation is observed or reported.
- a spouse or cohabitating intimate partner of an advanced cancer patient being evaluated at the UPMC's Liver Cancer Center; and
- age >21 years
Key exclusion criteria (7 listed)
- age < 21 years,
- lack of fluency in English,
- evidence of thought disorder, delusions, hallucinations, or suicidal ideation.
- lack of fluency in English; and
- evidence of thought disorder, delusions, hallucinations, or suicidal ideation.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Stepped collaborative care interventionAlso: TreatmentUsing website that was specifically designed for advanced cancer patient, collaborative with treatment from health professional. | Behavioural | Stepped collaborative care intervention |
| Enhanced Usual CareAlso: ControlUsual care from health providers | Behavioural | Enhanced Usual Care |
Primary outcome
Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D)F
Time frame: Change from baseline in depression at 6 months
Measure of depression questionnaire- The score is the sum of the 20 questions. Possible range is 0-60. A score of 16 points or more is considered depressed.
Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D)
Time frame: Change from baseline in depression at 12 months
Measure of depression questionnaire - The score is the sum of the 20 questions. Possible range is 0-60. A score of 16 points or more is considered depressed.
EuroQOL-5 Dimension Questionnaire (EQ-5D)
Time frame: Change from baseline in quality of life at 6 months
Measure of quality of life questionnaire - scale is numbered from 0 to 100. 100 means the best health the participant can imagine. 0 means the worst health the participant can imagine.
EuroQOL-5 Dimension Questionnaire (EQ-5D)
Time frame: Change from baseline in quality of life at 12 months
Measure of quality of life questionnaire - scale is numbered from 0 to 100. 100 means the best health the participant can imagine. 0 means the worst health the participant can imagine.
6 secondary outcomes
Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL)
Time frame: Change from baseline of interpersonal support evaluation at 6 months
Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL)
Time frame: Change from baseline of interpersonal support evaluation at 12 months
Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI)
Time frame: Change from baseline in improved sleep latency at 6 months.
Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI)
Time frame: Change from baseline in improved sleep latency at 12 months.
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)
Time frame: Change from baseline in perceived stress at 6 months
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)
Time frame: Change from baseline in perceived stress at 12 months
Results and safety
The study was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 28 Feb 2025.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Study protocol, statistical analyses plan and all de-identified data collected during the trial may be shared with appropriately credentialed investigators who request data directly from the Primary Investigator: Jennifer Steel, PhD, University of Pittsburgh Physicians Department of Surgery Kaufmann Medical Building, Suite 601 3471 Fifth Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15213 412-692-2041 steejl@upmc.edu.
Related trials for Depression
Recruiting
Regulated Stimulation for Optimized Network Activity and Therapeutic Equilibrium
Major Depressive Disorder
Recruiting
Metacognitive Bibliotherapy for Anxiety, Depression, and Metacognitions in University Students
Anxiety, Depression
Enrolling by invitation
Vagus Nerve Stimulation (VNS) Electroencephalogram (EEG) Protocol Supplement
Treatment Resistant Depression
Active, not recruiting
NYUCI-ES: Psychosocial Intervention to Improve Health Outcomes for Chinese and Korean ADRD Caregivers
Dementia Caregivers, Diabetes
Enrolling by invitation
Intervention to Reduce HIV Related Stigma Among Pregnant and Postpartum Women
HIV, HIV - Human Immunodeficiency Virus
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.
Jennifer L Steel, PhD principal investigator
UPMC Department of Surgery
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Stepped collaborative care intervention in people with Depression and Quality of Life, run by University of Pittsburgh 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 7 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: withdrawn, as of the sponsor's last update on 28 Feb 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?
The study was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
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?
Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D)F (time frame: Change from baseline in depression at 6 months). 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?
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 28 Feb 2025; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 3 Nov 2026.