Doctor-Patient RelationNCT05588856
Doctor-patient Partnerships: the Key to a Better Standard of Medical Advice?
An observational study of Doctor-Patient Relation, run by Singapore General Hospital at 1 site in Singapore.
Trial summary
Background: The current legal standard of advice in Singapore has three components: distinction of advice from the other parts of clinical consultation (i.e. diagnosis and treatment) for the purpose of standard setting, categories of information that need to be disclosed to patients and how the adequacy of this… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 21 to 99 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Doctor-Patient Relation
- What is being tested?
- In depth Interview
- How many people
- 300 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSingapore
- Study dates
- 17 Jun 2021to 1 May 2027
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
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 99 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Patients with chronic lung disease and healthcare professionals who care for them
Who may be able to join
- Recruitment of all participants will be through the Singapore General Hospital ambulatory clinic or general ward.
- All patients must have a confirmed diagnosis of the chronic lung disease that is consistent with international guidelines. The diagnosis will be verified by the managing physician Informed consent forms will be signed. We will aim for purposive and maximum variation sampling.
Who cannot join
- None of the above
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Singapore1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Singapore General Hospital
Singapore, 169608
Devanand Anantham, 63214700, anantham.devanand@singhealth.com.sg
About this study
Background: The current legal standard of advice in Singapore has three components: distinction of advice from the other parts of clinical consultation (i.e. diagnosis and treatment) for the purpose of standard setting, categories of information that need to be disclosed to patients and how the adequacy of this information is judged in court. A review of empirical data shows that information deficit is not the only or most pressing concern in decision-making from the patients' perspective. The data also reflects the value that is placed on relationships that patients have with their treating doctors. Features of a good doctor-patient relationship can be found in partnerships, which are based on therapeutic alliance and mutuality.
Objective: To develop a contextual understanding of the role of clinical partnerships in Singapore, empirical data is needed from both patients and healthcare workers on their understanding and interpretation of doctor-patient partnerships and how medical decisions are made using this relationship.
Design: A qualitative study using interpretive analysis of semi-structured interviews conducted via in-person, telephone and videoconferencing interviews.
Read the detailed description
Doctor-patient partnerships: the key to a better standard of medical advice?
Background: The current legal standard of advice in Singapore has three components: distinction of advice from the other parts of clinical consultation (i.e. diagnosis and treatment) for the purpose of standard setting, categories of information that need to be disclosed to patients and how the adequacy of this information is judged in court. A review of empirical data shows that information deficit is not the only or most pressing concern in decision-making from the patients' perspective. The data also reflects the value that is placed on relationships that patients have with their treating doctors. Features of a good doctor-patient relationship can be found in partnerships, which are based on therapeutic alliance and mutuality.
Objective: To develop a contextual understanding of the role of clinical partnerships in Singapore, empirical data is needed from both patients and healthcare workers on their understanding and interpretation of doctor-patient partnerships and how medical decisions are made using this relationship.
Design: A qualitative study using interpretive analysis of semi-structured interviews conducted via in-person, telephone and videoconferencing interviews.
Setting: Singapore General Hospital inpatients and outpatients from Dept of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
Participants:
- Patients with known chronic lung disease such as Chronic Lung Disease (n=200)
- Healthcare professionals (eg. doctors and nurses) involved in the management of the above patients (n=100) Recruitment: Recruitment of all participants will be through the Singapore General Hospital ambulatory clinic or general ward. All patients must have a confirmed diagnosis of the chronic lung disease that is consistent with international guidelines. The diagnosis will be verified by the managing physician Informed consent forms will be signed. We will aim for purposive and maximum variation sampling. Interview: Semi-structured interviews with patients with chronic lung disease and healthcare providers according to the interview guide. Each interview will be 45 - 120 minutes during their consultation waiting time, conducted in a counselling/private room is done in person. If participant is agreeable the interviews can be conducted via telephone or videoconferencing. All interviews will be audio recorded. The video component of videoconferencing will be deleted. The initial interviews will be conducted >1 investigator to ensure standardization of the process. We will ask the participants for permission for follow-up interviews and questions. We will ask participants to recommend other participants to facilitate snowball sampling especially for the healthcare professionals. Data analysis: The interview analysis will follow an iterative process (deductively and inductively) All non-English interviews will be translated All interviews will be transcribed before analysis After being transcribed, the audio recordings will be destroyed Coded transcripts will be stored in a password protected computer of the investigators. Member checking of transcripts and representative quotes will be allowed. Interview Guide (Patients) Examples of questions to guide interview Medical condition 1. Describe your medical diagnosis and prognosis 2. Describe your lung condition 3. How will your disease progress? 4. How has this disease impacted your life? Decision-making 5. Describe the medical decisions that that you have had to make 6. Share examples of good and less good decision-making experiences 7. Do your healthcare providers support your decision-making? 8. Do you feel that you are in control of your medical decisions? If so why? 9. Are you satisfied with the current medical decision-making process? Relationships 10. Describe the relationships that you have had with your healthcare providers 11. Share good (and bad) features of the working relationship with your healthcare providers 12. What should be the aim of the doctor-patient/nurse-patient relationship? 13. What should the healthcare providers goals be for the relationship? 14. What should be your goals for the relationship? 15. Do you feel respected by your healthcare providers? 16. What do you value in your healthcare providers? 17. What makes you satisfied with your doctors? 18. Do your healthcare providers address your concerns? Decision-making responsibility 19. Have you got any thoughts about who has responsibility for the decisions that have been made? 20. Who is responsible for the medical decisions that have been made? 21. Who is responsible for the medical decisions when something goes wrong? 22. Who should be making medical decisions for you? 23. Who makes decisions on your behalf? Scope of advice 24. What information would you want to make medical decisions? 25. What type of risks would you want to know about before making decisions? 26. Do you want to be told of alternatives before making any medical decision? 27. Who do you think should determine the standard of medical advice? 28. Do you understand the information that you have been given on your medical condition? Concerns 29. What are your current concerns and challenges? 30. What does living well mean for you now? 31. What goals do you have when you make medical decisions? Informed Consent 32. What do you want to be told before you provide informed consent? 33. Do you find giving informed consent stressful? If so, why? 34. Is informed consent part of the medical encounter or a legal requirement? 35. What is the average you spend speaking to your healthcare provider during each encounter? 36. Would you want to know all the risks about procedures? 37. Would you want to know about very rare but dangerous risks? 38. Would you still want to know the risks even if it may confuse you? 39. How should it be determined if you have been told the right amount of information before making a decisions? Goals 40. Do your healthcare providers elicit your beliefs and values? 41. Do those who make decisions on your behalf elicit your beliefs and values? 42. What do you value or want from healthcare? 43. What do you value during your consultation? Interview Guide (Healthcare Professionals) Examples of questions to guide interview Medical Service 1. Describe how you are involved in the care of patients with this type of chronic lung disease 2. How long have been caring for such patients 3. What training have received in the care of these patients? Decision-making 4. Describe the medical decisions that that you have had to make 5. Share examples of good and less good decision-making experiences 6. Do patients expect you to make medical decisions on their behalf? 7. Do you want to make medical decisions on behalf of competent patients? Why? 8. Do you feel that patients are in control of their medical decisions? If so why? 9. Are you satisfied with the current medical decision-making process? Relationships 10. Describe the relationships that you have had with your patients 11. Share good (and bad) features of the working relationship with your patients 12. What should be the aim of the doctor-patient/nurse-patient relationship? 13. What should the healthcare providers' goals be for the relationship? 14. What should the patients' goals be for the relationship? 15. Do you feel respected by your patients? 16. What do you value in your relationships with patients? Decision-making responsibility 17. Have you got any thoughts about who has responsibility for the decisions that have been made? 18. Who is responsible for the medical decisions that have been made? 19. Who is responsible for the medical decisions when something goes wrong? 20. What is your understanding of the legal position of decision-making responsibility? 21. What is your understanding of the ethical position of decision-making responsibility? Scope of advice 22. What information should you give to help patients make medical decisions? 23. What type of risks do you think patients would want to know about before making decisions? 24. Do you want patients want to be told of alternatives before making any medical decision? 25. Who do you think should determine the standard of medical advice? 26. Do you think patients understand the information that they have been given on their medical condition? Concerns 27. What are your current concerns and challenges about medical decision-making and professional relationship with patients? 28. What do you think living well mean for your patient? 29. What goals do you have when you make medical recommendations? Informed Consent 30. What do you think patients should to be told before they provide informed consent? 31. Do you find taking informed consent stressful? If so, why? 32. Is informed consent part of the medical encounter or a legal requirement? 33. What is the average time you spend speaking to your patient during each encounter? 34. Would your patient want to know all the risks about procedures? 35. Would your patient want to know about very rare but dangerous risks? 36. Would your patient still want to know the risks even if it may confuse them? 37. How should it be determined if your patient has been told the right amount of information before making a decisions? Goals 38. Do your elicit your patients beliefs and values before making recommendations? 39. Are the goals of the patient consistent with the goals of medicine? 40. What do your patients value or want from healthcare? 41. What do your patients value or want from the consultation? Data extraction Data from electronic medical records for patients who have consented to the interview:
- Age, education, race, religion, occupation
- Risk factors: Smoking status
- Co-morbidities: Depression score (PHQ-9) (if applicable)
- Clinical Scores: eg. BODE, CAT, ACT (if applicable)
- Medical history, duration and objective severity of lung disease: whether the patient is on long term oxygen, been admitted to ICU and number of exacerbations per year.
- Any previous ACP counselling: Yes or No or Unsure Data from Healthcare workers
- Age, education, race, religion
- Designation, profession, years of service in SingHealth, years of service in the profession
- Formal training in communication and ethics
- Conditions
- Doctor-Patient Relation
- Being tested
- In depth Interview
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
In depth InterviewOther
In depth Interviews
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Patients with Chronic Lung Disease | Not described Receives: Other: In depth Interview | |
| Healthcare professionals | Not described Receives: Other: In depth Interview |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Descriptions of decision-making and relationships
As above
Measured: 5 years
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted20 Oct 2022
- Study start17 Jun 2021
- Primary completion1 May 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion1 May 2027 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Doctor-Patient RelationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Singapore General HospitalThe 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
- Observational
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 300 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Singapore General Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05588856
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2021/2354
- Status last verified
- Jun 2025
- First submitted
- 17 Oct 2022
- Last updated
- 18 May 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: No plans to share data
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 18 May 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Doctor-patient Partnerships: the Key to a Better Standard of Medical Advice?
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05588856
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2021/2354
- Conditions
- Doctor-Patient Relation
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 300 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Singapore General HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 17 Jun 2021 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 May 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 1 May 2027 (estimated)
- First posted
- 20 Oct 2022 (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.
Background: The current legal standard of advice in Singapore has three components: distinction of advice from the other parts of clinical consultation (i.e. diagnosis and treatment) for the purpose of standard setting, categories of information that need to be disclosed to patients and how the adequacy of this information is judged in court. A review of empirical data shows that information deficit is not the only or most pressing concern in decision-making from the patients' perspective. The data also reflects the value that is placed on relationships that patients have with their treating doctors. Features of a good doctor-patient relationship can be found in partnerships, which are based on therapeutic alliance and mutuality.
Objective: To develop a contextual understanding of the role of clinical partnerships in Singapore, empirical data is needed from both patients and healthcare workers on their understanding and interpretation of doctor-patient partnerships and how medical decisions are made using this relationship.
Design: A qualitative study using interpretive analysis of semi-structured interviews conducted via in-person, telephone and videoconferencing interviews.
Detailed description
Doctor-patient partnerships: the key to a better standard of medical advice?
Background: The current legal standard of advice in Singapore has three components: distinction of advice from the other parts of clinical consultation (i.e. diagnosis and treatment) for the purpose of standard setting, categories of information that need to be disclosed to patients and how the adequacy of this information is judged in court. A review of empirical data shows that information deficit is not the only or most pressing concern in decision-making from the patients' perspective. The data also reflects the value that is placed on relationships that patients have with their treating doctors. Features of a good doctor-patient relationship can be found in partnerships, which are based on therapeutic alliance and mutuality.
Objective: To develop a contextual understanding of the role of clinical partnerships in Singapore, empirical data is needed from both patients and healthcare workers on their understanding and interpretation of doctor-patient partnerships and how medical decisions are made using this relationship.
Design: A qualitative study using interpretive analysis of semi-structured interviews conducted via in-person, telephone and videoconferencing interviews.
Setting: Singapore General Hospital inpatients and outpatients from Dept of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
Participants:
- Patients with known chronic lung disease such as Chronic Lung Disease (n=200)
- Healthcare professionals (eg. doctors and nurses) involved in the management of the above patients (n=100) Recruitment: Recruitment of all participants will be through the Singapore General Hospital ambulatory clinic or general ward. All patients must have a confirmed diagnosis of the chronic lung disease that is consistent with international guidelines. The diagnosis will be verified by the managing physician Informed consent forms will be signed. We will aim for purposive and maximum variation sampling. Interview: Semi-structured interviews with patients with chronic lung disease and healthcare providers according to the interview guide. Each interview will be 45 - 120 minutes during their consultation waiting time, conducted in a counselling/private room is done in person. If participant is agreeable the interviews can be conducted via telephone or videoconferencing. All interviews will be audio recorded. The video component of videoconferencing will be deleted. The initial interviews will be conducted >1 investigator to ensure standardization of the process. We will ask the participants for permission for follow-up interviews and questions. We will ask participants to recommend other participants to facilitate snowball sampling especially for the healthcare professionals. Data analysis: The interview analysis will follow an iterative process (deductively and inductively) All non-English interviews will be translated All interviews will be transcribed before analysis After being transcribed, the audio recordings will be destroyed Coded transcripts will be stored in a password protected computer of the investigators. Member checking of transcripts and representative quotes will be allowed. Interview Guide (Patients) Examples of questions to guide interview Medical condition 1. Describe your medical diagnosis and prognosis 2. Describe your lung condition 3. How will your disease progress? 4. How has this disease impacted your life? Decision-making 5. Describe the medical decisions that that you have had to make 6. Share examples of good and less good decision-making experiences 7. Do your healthcare providers support your decision-making? 8. Do you feel that you are in control of your medical decisions? If so why? 9. Are you satisfied with the current medical decision-making process? Relationships 10. Describe the relationships that you have had with your healthcare providers 11. Share good (and bad) features of the working relationship with your healthcare providers 12. What should be the aim of the doctor-patient/nurse-patient relationship? 13. What should the healthcare providers goals be for the relationship? 14. What should be your goals for the relationship? 15. Do you feel respected by your healthcare providers? 16. What do you value in your healthcare providers? 17. What makes you satisfied with your doctors? 18. Do your healthcare providers address your concerns? Decision-making responsibility 19. Have you got any thoughts about who has responsibility for the decisions that have been made? 20. Who is responsible for the medical decisions that have been made? 21. Who is responsible for the medical decisions when something goes wrong? 22. Who should be making medical decisions for you? 23. Who makes decisions on your behalf? Scope of advice 24. What information would you want to make medical decisions? 25. What type of risks would you want to know about before making decisions? 26. Do you want to be told of alternatives before making any medical decision? 27. Who do you think should determine the standard of medical advice? 28. Do you understand the information that you have been given on your medical condition? Concerns 29. What are your current concerns and challenges? 30. What does living well mean for you now? 31. What goals do you have when you make medical decisions? Informed Consent 32. What do you want to be told before you provide informed consent? 33. Do you find giving informed consent stressful? If so, why? 34. Is informed consent part of the medical encounter or a legal requirement? 35. What is the average you spend speaking to your healthcare provider during each encounter? 36. Would you want to know all the risks about procedures? 37. Would you want to know about very rare but dangerous risks? 38. Would you still want to know the risks even if it may confuse you? 39. How should it be determined if you have been told the right amount of information before making a decisions? Goals 40. Do your healthcare providers elicit your beliefs and values? 41. Do those who make decisions on your behalf elicit your beliefs and values? 42. What do you value or want from healthcare? 43. What do you value during your consultation? Interview Guide (Healthcare Professionals) Examples of questions to guide interview Medical Service 1. Describe how you are involved in the care of patients with this type of chronic lung disease 2. How long have been caring for such patients 3. What training have received in the care of these patients? Decision-making 4. Describe the medical decisions that that you have had to make 5. Share examples of good and less good decision-making experiences 6. Do patients expect you to make medical decisions on their behalf? 7. Do you want to make medical decisions on behalf of competent patients? Why? 8. Do you feel that patients are in control of their medical decisions? If so why? 9. Are you satisfied with the current medical decision-making process? Relationships 10. Describe the relationships that you have had with your patients 11. Share good (and bad) features of the working relationship with your patients 12. What should be the aim of the doctor-patient/nurse-patient relationship? 13. What should the healthcare providers' goals be for the relationship? 14. What should the patients' goals be for the relationship? 15. Do you feel respected by your patients? 16. What do you value in your relationships with patients? Decision-making responsibility 17. Have you got any thoughts about who has responsibility for the decisions that have been made? 18. Who is responsible for the medical decisions that have been made? 19. Who is responsible for the medical decisions when something goes wrong? 20. What is your understanding of the legal position of decision-making responsibility? 21. What is your understanding of the ethical position of decision-making responsibility? Scope of advice 22. What information should you give to help patients make medical decisions? 23. What type of risks do you think patients would want to know about before making decisions? 24. Do you want patients want to be told of alternatives before making any medical decision? 25. Who do you think should determine the standard of medical advice? 26. Do you think patients understand the information that they have been given on their medical condition? Concerns 27. What are your current concerns and challenges about medical decision-making and professional relationship with patients? 28. What do you think living well mean for your patient? 29. What goals do you have when you make medical recommendations? Informed Consent 30. What do you think patients should to be told before they provide informed consent? 31. Do you find taking informed consent stressful? If so, why? 32. Is informed consent part of the medical encounter or a legal requirement? 33. What is the average time you spend speaking to your patient during each encounter? 34. Would your patient want to know all the risks about procedures? 35. Would your patient want to know about very rare but dangerous risks? 36. Would your patient still want to know the risks even if it may confuse them? 37. How should it be determined if your patient has been told the right amount of information before making a decisions? Goals 38. Do your elicit your patients beliefs and values before making recommendations? 39. Are the goals of the patient consistent with the goals of medicine? 40. What do your patients value or want from healthcare? 41. What do your patients value or want from the consultation? Data extraction Data from electronic medical records for patients who have consented to the interview:
- Age, education, race, religion, occupation
- Risk factors: Smoking status
- Co-morbidities: Depression score (PHQ-9) (if applicable)
- Clinical Scores: eg. BODE, CAT, ACT (if applicable)
- Medical history, duration and objective severity of lung disease: whether the patient is on long term oxygen, been admitted to ICU and number of exacerbations per year.
- Any previous ACP counselling: Yes or No or Unsure Data from Healthcare workers
- Age, education, race, religion
- Designation, profession, years of service in SingHealth, years of service in the profession
- Formal training in communication and ethics
Study design
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Patients with Chronic Lung Disease | – | Other: In depth Interview |
| Healthcare professionals | – | Other: In depth Interview |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 21 to 99 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Patients with chronic lung disease and healthcare professionals who care for them
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Recruitment of all participants will be through the Singapore General Hospital ambulatory clinic or general ward.
- All patients must have a confirmed diagnosis of the chronic lung disease that is consistent with international guidelines. The diagnosis will be verified by the managing physician Informed consent forms will be signed. We will aim for purposive and maximum variation sampling.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- None of the above
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 |
|---|---|---|
| In depth InterviewIn depth Interviews | Other | Healthcare professionals, Patients with Chronic Lung Disease |
Primary outcome
Descriptions of decision-making and relationships
Time frame: 5 years
As above
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 18 May 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. No plans to share data
Related trials for Doctor-Patient Relation
Active, not recruitingPhase 3
Physician/Patient Choice of Either High-Dose Recombinant Interferon Alfa-2B or Ipilimumab, Versus Pembrolizumab in Treating Patients With Stage III-IV High Risk Melanoma That Has Been Removed by Surgery
Clinical Stage III Cutaneous Melanoma AJCC v8, Clinical Stage IV Cutaneous Melanoma AJCC v8
Recruiting
Ambient AI Scribe (Voa Health) in Outpatient Clinics: Draft Notes, Documentation Burden, and Well-Being
Burnout, Professionals, Medical Records Systems, Computerized
RecruitingObservational study
The Parasite and Infestation Study
Parasite and Infestation Physician-Patient Diagnostic Incongruency
RecruitingObservational study
Physician and Patient Preferences for Cell Therapies in Advanced Solid Tumors
Solid Tumors
RecruitingObservational study
A "Physician & Patient-powered" Cohort Registry (MY MYELOMA)
Multiple Myeloma
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.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Doctor-Patient Relation, run by Singapore General Hospital at 1 site in Singapore.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 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: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 18 May 2026. 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 Singapore. 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?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Devanand Anantham (63214700, anantham.devanand@singhealth.com.sg), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Descriptions of decision-making and relationships (time frame: 5 years). 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 18 May 2026.