Cognitive AbnormalityNCT07812337
Evaluation of a Decision-Support Tool for Blood Biomarker Testing for Alzheimer's Disease in Primary Care
A study testing Shared decision-making support tool in people with Cognitive Abnormality, run by University of Wisconsin, Madison at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The goal of the current study is to evaluate a decision-support tool intended to help primary care providers (PCPs) communicate with patients about blood biomarker testing for Alzheimer's Disease, enhancing shared-decision making and information sharing in the clinical space. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 50 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Cognitive Abnormality
- What is being tested?
- Shared decision-making support tool
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 70 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 7 Oct 2026to 15 Nov 2027
- Phase
- Interventional
- 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 50 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Simulation 1 and Simulation 2: PCPs with experience and interest in cognitive diagnosis.
- Simulation 2: community dwelling older adults age 50 or older are eligible.
Who cannot join
- Participant Exclusion Criteria:
- Not fluent in English
- age <50 years
- pre-existing diagnosis of cognitive impairment
- having an activated medical decision-make r or not living independently in the community.
- There will be no exclusion based upon sex/gender, race, or ethnicity.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
United States1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin, 53705
Fred Ketchum, M.D., PhD, 608-265-5523, fketchum@wisc.edu
About this study
Official title: Pilot Evaluation of a Tool to Support Communication About Blood Biomarker Testing for Cognitive Complaints in Primary Care
The goal of the current study is to evaluate a decision-support tool intended to help primary care providers (PCPs) communicate with patients about blood biomarker testing for Alzheimer's Disease, enhancing shared-decision making and information sharing in the clinical space. The main questions it aims to answer are:
- Is the decision-support tool accepted and easy to use for PCPs?
- Does using the tool improve shared decision-making during clinical encounters? Researchers will compare clinical encounters between PCPs who do not use the tool to discuss blood biomarker testing for Alzheimer's Disease, versus PCPs who have been trained to utilize the tool during clinical encounters to see whether the tool effectively facilitates shared-decision making.
Read the detailed description
This pilot study will determine the acceptability and usability of a decision-support tool for primary care providers (PCPs) and assess the feasibility of recruitment techniques in preparation for a later trial. The study includes two high-fidelity simulation components.
Simulation 1: The investigators will assess the usability and acceptability of the decision-support tool through direct observation and surveys of PCPs participating in high-fidelity simulations of clinical encounters (N=15). The hypothesis is that the decision-support tool will be acceptable and usable by PCPs.
Simulation 2: The investigators will compare the effect of the decision-support tool on shared decision-making (SDM) in high-fidelity simulated clinical encounters conducted with the tool versus without the tool (N=25 per arm). The hypothesis is that shared decision-making will increase in encounters using the intervention.
- Conditions
- Cognitive Abnormality
- Being tested
- Shared decision-making support tool
- Keywords
- Alzheimer's Disease, Blood Biomarker Testing, Shared Decision-Making
- Medical subject headings
- Alzheimer Disease
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Shared decision-making support toolOther
Based on previous data analysis, the decision-support tool is intended to facilitate discussions between the patients and their providers regarding the Phospho-Tau blood test. It functions as a flowchart to provide clear, accessible information about the blood test that will assist providers in discussions around guide the patients through navigating a diagnostic workups for memory problems.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Simulation clinical encounters | Experimental | In Simulation 1, 15 PCPs will complete simulated clinical encounters with standardized patients after completing trainings on how to use the decision-support tool. In Simulation 2, a different group of 3-5 PCPs will see patients during simulated clinical encounters without using the decision-support too for the first half. In the second half, these PCPs will complete trainings on how to use the tool and then see the second half of the participants using the tool. Receives: Other: Shared decision-making support tool |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Effectiveness of the tool on shared decision-making as measured by OPTION-5 Score
Effectiveness of the tool on shared decision-making will be measured by OPTION-5 score, a validated measurement to quantitatively evaluated shared decision-making process from the observers' perspective. The total range of scores is from 0-100 where higher scores indicate greater patient involvement
Measured: This is a single time point outcome measure. In Simulation 2, providers participants will complete OPTION-5 immediately after they participate in the high fidelity clinical encounter session.
Effectiveness of the tool on shared decision-making assessed by SDM-Q-9.
SDM-Q-9 is a 9-item questionnaire that evaluates the shared decision-making (SDM) process from the patient's perspective. Individual items range from "completely disagree" (0) to "completely agree" (5), yielding a raw sum score between 0 and 45, where higher scores demonstrate increased effectiveness.
Measured: This is a single time point outcome measure. In Simulation 2, patients participants will complete SDM-Q-9 immediately after they participate in the high fidelity clinical encounter session.
Secondary outcomes (2)
Acceptability and usability of the tool as measured by an adapted System Usability Scale (SUS)
The System Usability Scale (SUS) is a short 10-item questionnaire that presents a subjective assessments of usability. The scores are calculated by adjusting odd- and even-numbered item responses, summing the adjusted scores (0-40), and multiplying the total by 2.5 to produce a final score ranging from 0 to 100, where higher scores indicate increased acceptability and usability.
Measured: In both simulation 1 and simulation 2, provider participants complete the SUS immediately after they have completed the high fidelity clinical encounter session with a patient participant or a standardized patient.
Acceptability and usability of the tool as measured by Practitioner Opinion Survey
The Practitioner opinion survey (POS) is a questionnaire that contains 15 items that assess the usability and acceptability of the shared decision-making tool. The total score range is from 15-75, with higher summed score indicating higher usability and acceptability from the perspective of the providers.
Measured: In both simulation 1 and simulation 2, provider participants complete the POS immediately after they have completed the high fidelity clinical encounter session with a patient participant or a standardized patient.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted10 Sep 2026
- Study start7 Oct 2026
- Primary completion15 Nov 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion15 Nov 2027 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (3)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Cognitive AbnormalityStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of Wisconsin, MadisonThe 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
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 70 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Wisconsin, Madison
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institute on Aging (NIA)
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Fred Ketchum, M.D., Ph.D., Principal investigator, University of Wisconsin, Madison
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07812337
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2026-1045
- Other IDs
- R00AG083131, NRL Neurology, Protocol Version 8/14/26
- Status last verified
- Sep 2026
- First submitted
- 18 Aug 2026
- Last updated
- 28 Oct 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: There is currently not a plan to make IPD available.
Publications
Barr PJ, O'Malley AJ, Tsulukidze M, Gionfriddo MR, Montori V, Elwyn G. The psychometric properties of Observer OPTION(5), an observer measure of shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2015 Aug;98(8):970-6. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.04.010. Epub 2015 Apr 29.
PubMed 25956069Kriston L, Scholl I, Holzel L, Simon D, Loh A, Harter M. The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Jul;80(1):94-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.034. Epub 2009 Oct 30.
PubMed 19879711Brooke, John. (1995). SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval. Ind.. 189.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 28 Oct 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Pilot Evaluation of a Tool to Support Communication About Blood Biomarker Testing for Cognitive Complaints in Primary Care
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07812337
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2026-1045
- Conditions
- Cognitive Abnormality
- Keywords
- Alzheimer's Disease, Blood Biomarker Testing, Shared Decision-Making
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 70 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- University of Wisconsin, MadisonUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institute on Aging (NIA)
- Study start
- 7 Oct 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 15 Nov 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 15 Nov 2027 (estimated)
- First posted
- 10 Sep 2026 (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 goal of the current study is to evaluate a decision-support tool intended to help primary care providers (PCPs) communicate with patients about blood biomarker testing for Alzheimer's Disease, enhancing shared-decision making and information sharing in the clinical space. The main questions it aims to answer are:
- Is the decision-support tool accepted and easy to use for PCPs?
- Does using the tool improve shared decision-making during clinical encounters? Researchers will compare clinical encounters between PCPs who do not use the tool to discuss blood biomarker testing for Alzheimer's Disease, versus PCPs who have been trained to utilize the tool during clinical encounters to see whether the tool effectively facilitates shared-decision making.
Detailed description
This pilot study will determine the acceptability and usability of a decision-support tool for primary care providers (PCPs) and assess the feasibility of recruitment techniques in preparation for a later trial. The study includes two high-fidelity simulation components.
Simulation 1: The investigators will assess the usability and acceptability of the decision-support tool through direct observation and surveys of PCPs participating in high-fidelity simulations of clinical encounters (N=15). The hypothesis is that the decision-support tool will be acceptable and usable by PCPs.
Simulation 2: The investigators will compare the effect of the decision-support tool on shared decision-making (SDM) in high-fidelity simulated clinical encounters conducted with the tool versus without the tool (N=25 per arm). The hypothesis is that shared decision-making will increase in encounters using the intervention.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Simulation clinical encounters | Experimental | Other: Shared decision-making support toolIn Simulation 1, 15 PCPs will complete simulated clinical encounters with standardized patients after completing trainings on how to use the decision-support tool. In Simulation 2, a different group of 3-5 PCPs will see patients during simulated clinical encounters without using the decision-support too for the first half. In the second half, these PCPs will complete trainings on how to use the tool and then see the second half of the participants using the tool. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 50 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Simulation 1 and Simulation 2: PCPs with experience and interest in cognitive diagnosis.
- Simulation 2: community dwelling older adults age 50 or older are eligible.
Key exclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Not fluent in English
- age <50 years
- pre-existing diagnosis of cognitive impairment
- having an activated medical decision-make r or not living independently in the community.
- There will be no exclusion based upon sex/gender, race, or ethnicity.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Shared decision-making support toolBased on previous data analysis, the decision-support tool is intended to facilitate discussions between the patients and their providers regarding the Phospho-Tau blood test. It functions as a flowchart to provide clear, accessible information about the blood test that will assist providers in discussions around guide the patients through navigating a diagnostic workups for memory problems. | Other | Simulation clinical encounters |
Primary outcome
Effectiveness of the tool on shared decision-making as measured by OPTION-5 Score
Time frame: This is a single time point outcome measure. In Simulation 2, providers participants will complete OPTION-5 immediately after they participate in the high fidelity clinical encounter session.
Effectiveness of the tool on shared decision-making will be measured by OPTION-5 score, a validated measurement to quantitatively evaluated shared decision-making process from the observers' perspective. The total range of scores is from 0-100 where higher scores indicate greater patient involvement
Effectiveness of the tool on shared decision-making assessed by SDM-Q-9.
Time frame: This is a single time point outcome measure. In Simulation 2, patients participants will complete SDM-Q-9 immediately after they participate in the high fidelity clinical encounter session.
SDM-Q-9 is a 9-item questionnaire that evaluates the shared decision-making (SDM) process from the patient's perspective. Individual items range from "completely disagree" (0) to "completely agree" (5), yielding a raw sum score between 0 and 45, where higher scores demonstrate increased effectiveness.
2 secondary outcomes
Acceptability and usability of the tool as measured by an adapted System Usability Scale (SUS)
Time frame: In both simulation 1 and simulation 2, provider participants complete the SUS immediately after they have completed the high fidelity clinical encounter session with a patient participant or a standardized patient.
Acceptability and usability of the tool as measured by Practitioner Opinion Survey
Time frame: In both simulation 1 and simulation 2, provider participants complete the POS immediately after they have completed the high fidelity clinical encounter session with a patient participant or a standardized patient.
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 28 Oct 2026.
- Background: PubMed 25956069Barr PJ, O'Malley AJ, Tsulukidze M, Gionfriddo MR, Montori V, Elwyn G. The psychometric properties of Observer OPTION(5), an observer measure of shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2015 Aug;98(8):970-6. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.04.010. Epub 2015 Apr 29.
- Background: PubMed 19879711Kriston L, Scholl I, Holzel L, Simon D, Loh A, Harter M. The 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Development and psychometric properties in a primary care sample. Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Jul;80(1):94-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.034. Epub 2009 Oct 30.
- BackgroundBrooke, John. (1995). SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval. Ind.. 189.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. There is currently not a plan to make IPD available.
Related trials for Cognitive Abnormality
Recruiting
Interventions in Mathematics and Cognitive Skills
Math Learning Disability, Child Development
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Form of the Enjoyment of Physical Activity Scale-8 in Geriatrics With Minimal Cognitive Impairment
Geriatric, Elderly
Recruiting
Clinical Trial Protocol: Alzheimer's Dementia Underlying Encephalopathy
Alzheimer Dementia, Alzheimer Disease
RecruitingObservational study
Development of Motility and Cognition in Infants
Neurodevelopmental Disorders, Developmental Delay
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.
Fred Ketchum, M.D., Ph.D. principal investigator
University of Wisconsin, Madison
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Shared decision-making support tool in people with Cognitive Abnormality, run by University of Wisconsin, Madison 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 2 inclusion and 6 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 28 Oct 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 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?
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 Fred Ketchum, M.D., Ph.D. (608-265-5523, BiomarkersInPrimarycare@neurology.wisc.edu), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Effectiveness of the tool on shared decision-making as measured by OPTION-5 Score (time frame: This is a single time point outcome measure. In Simulation 2, providers participants will complete OPTION-5 immediately after they participate in the high fidelity clinical encounter session.). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07812337, which also lists 3 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 28 Oct 2026.