Consensus DevelopmentNCT05595018
The Opinions of Multiple Stakeholders Towards Gerontechnology Evaluation Framework: Four Studies Using Delphi Techniques
An observational study of Consensus Development, run by The University of Hong Kong at 1 site in Hong Kong.
Trial summary
The 4 studies aim to collect and examine the opinions from multiple stakeholders of gerontechnology product including the demand side, funder, supply side and academia on Gerontechnology Evaluation Framework. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Consensus Development
- What is being tested?
- End user, Demand side- management and Supply side
- How many people
- 87 participants
- Where
- 1 siteHong Kong
- Study dates
- 21 Oct 2022to 31 Aug 2023
- Phase
- Observational
- 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 Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Study population: Stakeholders of gerontechnology in Hong Kong
Who may be able to join
None listed.
Who cannot join
- Unable to communicate in Chinese
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
The 4 studies aim to collect and examine the opinions from multiple stakeholders of gerontechnology product including the demand side, funder, supply side and academia on Gerontechnology Evaluation Framework. The Evaluation Framework will describe the essential knowledge to conduct an evaluation study for 10 selected gerontechnology product themes in local service settings. Specifically, we will (1) develop the indicators to determine if a companion robot, which is one of the product themes, is 'good'; (2) describe feasible study designs, implementation strategies and data analyses to generate evidenced-based evaluation results of companion robots; (3) outline strategies to build organizational research capacity to facilitate the evaluation of gerontechnology products.
In the Preparation Stage of all 4 studies, eligible participants will be recruited under purposive sampling and snowball sampling. Literature review, qualitative interviews and reflection on recent experience of evaluating gerontechnology products will be conducted. The opinions collected from the stakeholders will facilitate questionnaire development for the Delphi Stage. In the Delphi Stage of each of the 4 studies, there will be two rounds of quantitative validation of the grouped statements to generate consensus. Based on the opinions with consensus, the evaluation framework will be revised.
Read the detailed description
Study design For research question (1), two studies, i.e. Study A1 and A2, will be conducted. Study A1 will conduct secondary data analyses on qualitative interviews and a two-round questionnaire using Delphi techniques with end users. Study A2 will conduct focus groups and a two-round questionnaire using Delphi techniques with decision makers. For research question (2), Study B will employ a focus group and a real-time two-round questionnaire using Delphi techniques with decision makers. For research question (3), Study C will employ a real-time two-round questionnaire using Delphi techniques study with decision makers.
For all 4 studies, in the first Delphi round, panellists will rate anonymously the agreement of the opinions on a 5-point Likert scale, give reasons for their ratings and suggest revisions. They will then be presented with the overall analyses and their ratings in the first round. In the second Delphi round, they will rate anonymously the agreement of the revisions, and give reasons for their ratings.
Procedures Preparation Stage In Study A1, for qualitative interviews with product users, we will do a secondary data analysis on individual qualitative interviews with 10 end users and 6 demand side - frontline. All of them were recruited from a residential care home and previously participated in an intervention study using companion robot. Their answers to questions related to 'good' companion robots will be analyzed by framework analysis. The analyzed opinions, upon the approval of the investigators, will be listed as the questionnaire items for use in Delphi part. Additional questionnaire items for the Delphi part will be added based on the literature that explored the opinions of the product users towards companion robots. For the Delphi part, 20 - 60 eligible visitors of Gerontech and Innovation Expo, a local exhibition that provides a platform for stakeholders to discuss and collaborate for broader adoption of gerontechnology, will be recruited by convenience sampling at the time of Expo registration. Their voluntary written consent will be sought before they complete the Delphi questionnaire. They will provide their email address and contact number, so that they could be contacted to do second Delphi round.
In Study A2, for focus groups with decision makers, 5 - 20 decision makers who have joined the development, evaluation or procurement process about companion robots will be purposively recruited by investigators of the project through phone calls and emails. In particular, demand side - managerial personnel will be recruited from the organizations that have adopted companion robots in their service units. Academia will be recruited by purposive sampling on the investigators who have publication(s) on gerontechnology in online databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, CINAHL, EMBASE, and by convenient sampling on the nursing educators in the School of Nursing, the University of Hong Kong (HKU) will be conveniently recruited. Funders to be recruited are the representatives nominated Innovation and Technology Fund (that subsidizes social service units in renting and procuring gerontechnology products including companion robots) and. Supply side who expressed willingness to the Hong Kong Council of Social Service on providing companion robot(s) for trial test will be recruited. Similar to Study A1, their opinions will be analyzed by framework analysis. The analyzed opinions, upon the approval of the investigators, will be listed as the questionnaire items for use in Delphi part. For the Delphi part, 15 - 40 eligible visitors of Gerontech and Innovation Expo will be recruited following the same recruitment mechanism as the Delphi part in Study A1.
In Study B, the same focus groups participants who join the focus groups in Study A2 are simultaneously recruited. Their opinions in the focus groups will be analyzed by framework analysis. The analyzed opinions, upon the approval of the investigators, will be listed as the questionnaire items for use in Delphi part. For real-time Delphi questionnaires, in addition to the above decision makers, snowball sampling will be adopted to recruit the partners of Hong Kong Council of Social Service. These partners agreed to join discussions on gerontechnology, and they are eligible to join the Delphi part no matter they have or do not have experience in the development, evaluation or procurement process about companion robots. In total 8 - 15 panelists will be recruited.
In Study C, the questionnaire used in the Delphi stage will contain a list of strategies in enhancing the organizational research capacity, which are consolidated from literature review and investigators' past experience in doing similar research. In the Delphi Stage, the participants will be recruited in the same way as in Study B. In total 8 - 15 panelists will be recruited.
Delphi Stage For all 4 studies, in the first Delphi round, panellists will rate anonymously the agreement of the opinions on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), explain their ratings of 3 or less and suggest revisions (including additions of new items). Upon the approval of the investigators, items will be revised according to the suggestions. Items in the first Delphi round that reach moderate or low consensus are revised, and rated in the second Delphi round together with the newly suggested items. On the contrary, for items that reach very high consensus or high consensus, if no revisions are suggested, they will not be rated again. Before the second Delphi round, the panellists will be presented with the consensus level analyses, their own ratings in the first round, and proposed revisions based on the comment on the analysis. Items with more than 75% approval of the revised items will be included in the second round Delphi. In this round, more panellists will be recruited to rate anonymously the agreement of the revised items.
For Study A1 and A2, the second Delphi round is expected to take place two weeks after the first Delphi round. For Study B and C that adopt real-time Delphi in a workshop, the investigators will first present the materials consolidated in the Preparation Stage, and panellists will immediately indicate the agreement of the materials in the first Delphi round. This is followed by an open discussion of first round Delphi analysis results among the panellists for around an hour. For diverse opinions on the same issue, different scenarios favouring the opinions will be explored, and the opinions together with their favouring scenarios will be listed in the second Delphi round. When the opinions are consolidated, second Delphi round will then take place. The panellists will rate their agreement on the suggested revisions.
- Conditions
- Consensus Development
- Being tested
- End user, Demand side- management, Supply side, Funder, Academia
- Keywords
- Delphi, Gerontechnology, Outcome indicators, Study methods, Research capacity
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
End userOther
Participants will provide their opinions in two rounds to reach consensus
Demand side- managementOther
Participants will provide their opinions in two rounds to reach consensus
Supply sideOther
Participants will provide their opinions in two rounds to reach consensus
FunderOther
Participants will provide their opinions in two rounds to reach consensus
AcademiaOther
Participants will provide their opinions in two rounds to reach consensus
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| End user | A Delphi study will be conducted with two rounds to reach consensus Receives: Other: End user | |
| Demand side management | A Delphi study will be conducted with two rounds to reach consensus Receives: Other: Demand side- management | |
| Supply side | A Delphi study will be conducted with two rounds to reach consensus Receives: Other: Supply side | |
| Funder | A Delphi study will be conducted with two rounds to reach consensus Receives: Other: Funder | |
| Academia | A Delphi study will be conducted with two rounds to reach consensus Receives: Other: Academia |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Degree of consensus on indicators of a "good" companion robot
The level of agreement on indicators of a "good" companion robot. , the opinions will be categorized into four levels of consensus according to the central tendency, level of dispersion, and the rated level of importance (Shi et al., 2022). The consensus levels are defined as: very high consensus (median = 5, inter-quartile range (IQR) = 0, rating score of 4/5 ≥ 80%); high consensus (median = 5, IQR = 1, rating score of 4/5 ≥ 80%); moderate consensus (median = 4-5, IQR = 1, rating score 4/5 ≥ 75%), and low consensus (median ≤ 4, IQR ≤ 2, rating score 4/5 < 75%).
Measured: 3 months
Degree of consensus on feasible scientific methods and implementation strategies to generate evidence-based results of companion robots
The level of agreement on feasible scientific methods and implementation strategies to generate evidence-based results of companion robots. , the opinions will be categorized into four levels of consensus according to the central tendency, level of dispersion, and the rated level of importance (Shi et al., 2022). The consensus levels are defined as: very high consensus (median = 5, inter-quartile range (IQR) = 0, rating score of 4/5 ≥ 80%); high consensus (median = 5, IQR = 1, rating score of 4/5 ≥ 80%); moderate consensus (median = 4-5, IQR = 1, rating score 4/5 ≥ 75%), and low consensus (median ≤ 4, IQR ≤ 2, rating score 4/5 < 75%).
Measured: 3 months
Degree of consensus on strategies to build organizational research capacity facilitating the evaluation of gerontechnology products
The level of agreement on strategies to build organizational research capacity facilitating the evaluation of gerontechnology products. , the opinions will be categorized into four levels of consensus according to the central tendency, level of dispersion, and the rated level of importance (Shi et al., 2022). The consensus levels are defined as: very high consensus (median = 5, inter-quartile range (IQR) = 0, rating score of 4/5 ≥ 80%); high consensus (median = 5, IQR = 1, rating score of 4/5 ≥ 80%); moderate consensus (median = 4-5, IQR = 1, rating score 4/5 ≥ 75%), and low consensus (median ≤ 4, IQR ≤ 2, rating score 4/5 < 75%).
Measured: 3 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted26 Oct 2022
- Study start21 Oct 2022
- Primary completion31 Mar 2023
- Study completion31 Aug 2023
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Consensus DevelopmentStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by The University of Hong KongThe 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
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 87 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- The University of Hong Kong
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Gerontechnology Platform, The Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship Development Fund
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Dr. Derek Yee-Tak Cheung, The University of Hong Kong
- Investigators
- Yee Tak Cheung, PhD, Principal investigator, The University of Hong Kong
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05595018
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Gerontechnology Delphi
- Status last verified
- Nov 2023
- First submitted
- 19 Oct 2022
- Last updated
- 18 Nov 2023
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: Individual participant data (IPD) will not be available
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 18 Nov 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Opinions of Multiple Stakeholders Towards Gerontechnology Evaluation Framework: Four Studies Using Delphi Techniques
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05595018
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Gerontechnology Delphi
- Conditions
- Consensus Development
- Keywords
- Delphi, Gerontechnology, Outcome indicators, Study methods, Research capacity
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 87 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- The University of Hong KongUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Gerontechnology Platform, The Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship Development Fund
- Study start
- 21 Oct 2022 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Mar 2023 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Aug 2023 (actual)
- First posted
- 26 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.
The 4 studies aim to collect and examine the opinions from multiple stakeholders of gerontechnology product including the demand side, funder, supply side and academia on Gerontechnology Evaluation Framework. The Evaluation Framework will describe the essential knowledge to conduct an evaluation study for 10 selected gerontechnology product themes in local service settings. Specifically, we will (1) develop the indicators to determine if a companion robot, which is one of the product themes, is 'good'; (2) describe feasible study designs, implementation strategies and data analyses to generate evidenced-based evaluation results of companion robots; (3) outline strategies to build organizational research capacity to facilitate the evaluation of gerontechnology products.
In the Preparation Stage of all 4 studies, eligible participants will be recruited under purposive sampling and snowball sampling. Literature review, qualitative interviews and reflection on recent experience of evaluating gerontechnology products will be conducted. The opinions collected from the stakeholders will facilitate questionnaire development for the Delphi Stage. In the Delphi Stage of each of the 4 studies, there will be two rounds of quantitative validation of the grouped statements to generate consensus. Based on the opinions with consensus, the evaluation framework will be revised.
Detailed description
Study design For research question (1), two studies, i.e. Study A1 and A2, will be conducted. Study A1 will conduct secondary data analyses on qualitative interviews and a two-round questionnaire using Delphi techniques with end users. Study A2 will conduct focus groups and a two-round questionnaire using Delphi techniques with decision makers. For research question (2), Study B will employ a focus group and a real-time two-round questionnaire using Delphi techniques with decision makers. For research question (3), Study C will employ a real-time two-round questionnaire using Delphi techniques study with decision makers.
For all 4 studies, in the first Delphi round, panellists will rate anonymously the agreement of the opinions on a 5-point Likert scale, give reasons for their ratings and suggest revisions. They will then be presented with the overall analyses and their ratings in the first round. In the second Delphi round, they will rate anonymously the agreement of the revisions, and give reasons for their ratings.
Procedures Preparation Stage In Study A1, for qualitative interviews with product users, we will do a secondary data analysis on individual qualitative interviews with 10 end users and 6 demand side - frontline. All of them were recruited from a residential care home and previously participated in an intervention study using companion robot. Their answers to questions related to 'good' companion robots will be analyzed by framework analysis. The analyzed opinions, upon the approval of the investigators, will be listed as the questionnaire items for use in Delphi part. Additional questionnaire items for the Delphi part will be added based on the literature that explored the opinions of the product users towards companion robots. For the Delphi part, 20 - 60 eligible visitors of Gerontech and Innovation Expo, a local exhibition that provides a platform for stakeholders to discuss and collaborate for broader adoption of gerontechnology, will be recruited by convenience sampling at the time of Expo registration. Their voluntary written consent will be sought before they complete the Delphi questionnaire. They will provide their email address and contact number, so that they could be contacted to do second Delphi round.
In Study A2, for focus groups with decision makers, 5 - 20 decision makers who have joined the development, evaluation or procurement process about companion robots will be purposively recruited by investigators of the project through phone calls and emails. In particular, demand side - managerial personnel will be recruited from the organizations that have adopted companion robots in their service units. Academia will be recruited by purposive sampling on the investigators who have publication(s) on gerontechnology in online databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, CINAHL, EMBASE, and by convenient sampling on the nursing educators in the School of Nursing, the University of Hong Kong (HKU) will be conveniently recruited. Funders to be recruited are the representatives nominated Innovation and Technology Fund (that subsidizes social service units in renting and procuring gerontechnology products including companion robots) and. Supply side who expressed willingness to the Hong Kong Council of Social Service on providing companion robot(s) for trial test will be recruited. Similar to Study A1, their opinions will be analyzed by framework analysis. The analyzed opinions, upon the approval of the investigators, will be listed as the questionnaire items for use in Delphi part. For the Delphi part, 15 - 40 eligible visitors of Gerontech and Innovation Expo will be recruited following the same recruitment mechanism as the Delphi part in Study A1.
In Study B, the same focus groups participants who join the focus groups in Study A2 are simultaneously recruited. Their opinions in the focus groups will be analyzed by framework analysis. The analyzed opinions, upon the approval of the investigators, will be listed as the questionnaire items for use in Delphi part. For real-time Delphi questionnaires, in addition to the above decision makers, snowball sampling will be adopted to recruit the partners of Hong Kong Council of Social Service. These partners agreed to join discussions on gerontechnology, and they are eligible to join the Delphi part no matter they have or do not have experience in the development, evaluation or procurement process about companion robots. In total 8 - 15 panelists will be recruited.
In Study C, the questionnaire used in the Delphi stage will contain a list of strategies in enhancing the organizational research capacity, which are consolidated from literature review and investigators' past experience in doing similar research. In the Delphi Stage, the participants will be recruited in the same way as in Study B. In total 8 - 15 panelists will be recruited.
Delphi Stage For all 4 studies, in the first Delphi round, panellists will rate anonymously the agreement of the opinions on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), explain their ratings of 3 or less and suggest revisions (including additions of new items). Upon the approval of the investigators, items will be revised according to the suggestions. Items in the first Delphi round that reach moderate or low consensus are revised, and rated in the second Delphi round together with the newly suggested items. On the contrary, for items that reach very high consensus or high consensus, if no revisions are suggested, they will not be rated again. Before the second Delphi round, the panellists will be presented with the consensus level analyses, their own ratings in the first round, and proposed revisions based on the comment on the analysis. Items with more than 75% approval of the revised items will be included in the second round Delphi. In this round, more panellists will be recruited to rate anonymously the agreement of the revised items.
For Study A1 and A2, the second Delphi round is expected to take place two weeks after the first Delphi round. For Study B and C that adopt real-time Delphi in a workshop, the investigators will first present the materials consolidated in the Preparation Stage, and panellists will immediately indicate the agreement of the materials in the first Delphi round. This is followed by an open discussion of first round Delphi analysis results among the panellists for around an hour. For diverse opinions on the same issue, different scenarios favouring the opinions will be explored, and the opinions together with their favouring scenarios will be listed in the second Delphi round. When the opinions are consolidated, second Delphi round will then take place. The panellists will rate their agreement on the suggested revisions.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Number of arms
- 5
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| End user | – | Other: End userA Delphi study will be conducted with two rounds to reach consensus |
| Demand side management | – | Other: Demand side- managementA Delphi study will be conducted with two rounds to reach consensus |
| Supply side | – | Other: Supply sideA Delphi study will be conducted with two rounds to reach consensus |
| Funder | – | Other: FunderA Delphi study will be conducted with two rounds to reach consensus |
| Academia | – | Other: AcademiaA Delphi study will be conducted with two rounds to reach consensus |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Stakeholders of gerontechnology in Hong Kong
Key inclusion criteria (0 listed)
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Unable to communicate in Chinese
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 |
|---|---|---|
| End userParticipants will provide their opinions in two rounds to reach consensus | Other | End user |
| Demand side- managementParticipants will provide their opinions in two rounds to reach consensus | Other | Demand side management |
| Supply sideParticipants will provide their opinions in two rounds to reach consensus | Other | Supply side |
| FunderParticipants will provide their opinions in two rounds to reach consensus | Other | Funder |
| AcademiaParticipants will provide their opinions in two rounds to reach consensus | Other | Academia |
Primary outcome
Degree of consensus on indicators of a "good" companion robot
Time frame: 3 months
The level of agreement on indicators of a "good" companion robot. , the opinions will be categorized into four levels of consensus according to the central tendency, level of dispersion, and the rated level of importance (Shi et al., 2022). The consensus levels are defined as: very high consensus (median = 5, inter-quartile range (IQR) = 0, rating score of 4/5 ≥ 80%); high consensus (median = 5, IQR = 1, rating score of 4/5 ≥ 80%); moderate consensus (median = 4-5, IQR = 1, rating score 4/5 ≥ 75%), and low consensus (median ≤ 4, IQR ≤ 2, rating score 4/5 < 75%).
Degree of consensus on feasible scientific methods and implementation strategies to generate evidence-based results of companion robots
Time frame: 3 months
The level of agreement on feasible scientific methods and implementation strategies to generate evidence-based results of companion robots. , the opinions will be categorized into four levels of consensus according to the central tendency, level of dispersion, and the rated level of importance (Shi et al., 2022). The consensus levels are defined as: very high consensus (median = 5, inter-quartile range (IQR) = 0, rating score of 4/5 ≥ 80%); high consensus (median = 5, IQR = 1, rating score of 4/5 ≥ 80%); moderate consensus (median = 4-5, IQR = 1, rating score 4/5 ≥ 75%), and low consensus (median ≤ 4, IQR ≤ 2, rating score 4/5 < 75%).
Degree of consensus on strategies to build organizational research capacity facilitating the evaluation of gerontechnology products
Time frame: 3 months
The level of agreement on strategies to build organizational research capacity facilitating the evaluation of gerontechnology products. , the opinions will be categorized into four levels of consensus according to the central tendency, level of dispersion, and the rated level of importance (Shi et al., 2022). The consensus levels are defined as: very high consensus (median = 5, inter-quartile range (IQR) = 0, rating score of 4/5 ≥ 80%); high consensus (median = 5, IQR = 1, rating score of 4/5 ≥ 80%); moderate consensus (median = 4-5, IQR = 1, rating score 4/5 ≥ 75%), and low consensus (median ≤ 4, IQR ≤ 2, rating score 4/5 < 75%).
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 18 Nov 2023.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. Individual participant data (IPD) will not be available
Related trials for Consensus Development
RecruitingObservational study
Development of Context-Adapted Quality Indicators for Early Sepsis Care in Sub-Saharan Africa - A Modified Delphi Consensus Procedure
Sepsis
RecruitingObservational study
Cardiothoracic Critical Care as Subspecialty and Its Core Competencies
Consensus Development
RecruitingObservational study
Development of an Italian Questionnaire for Splenectomized Patients Using a Delphi Consensus Method
Splenectomy; Status, Asplenia
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event Endpoints in CANcer Trials (DATECAN-1)
Cancer
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.
Yee Tak Cheung, PhD principal investigator
The University of Hong Kong
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 Consensus Development, run by The University of Hong Kong at 1 site in Hong Kong.
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 0 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 18 Nov 2023. 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 Hong Kong. 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 is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
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?
Degree of consensus on indicators of a "good" companion robot (time frame: 3 months). The study lists 3 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 18 Nov 2023.