Shared Decision-makingNCT07913204
Evaluating a Digital Aid to Improve ICD Decisions
A study testing Arm A: Online, patient-facing decision-making aid (app) with personalized risk information. and Arm B - Online, patient-facing decision-making app without personalized risk information. in people with Shared Decision-making, run by Stanford University at 2 sites in United States.
Trial summary
Advanced heart failure, affecting 7 million Americans, has multiple causes and results in greatly increased risk of disability and death. A major problem is sudden cardiac death, when the damaged heart develops an abnormal pattern of electrical conduction that can result in cessation of heart activity. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 60 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Shared Decision-making
- What is being tested?
- Arm A: Online, patient-facing decision-making aid (app) with personalized risk information. and Arm B - Online, patient-facing decision-making app without personalized risk information.
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 600 participants
- Where
- 2 sitesUnited States
- Study dates
- 19 Oct 2026to Feb 2028
- 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 60 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Meets or approximates minimal criteria for primary prevention ICD placement. ● Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF) <35%.
- Clinical diagnosis of Heart Failure:
- Patients with severe ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy and underlying NYHA
- Class II or III Heart Failure, OR, Patients with severe nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy and underlying NYHA Class II or III Heart Failure.
- Age ≥ 70 years old.
- Able to consent in English, Mandarin or Spanish and follow study instructions.
Who cannot join
- Past ICD implantation (not including pacemakers).
- Any indication for secondary prevention of SCD via ICD implantation.
- History of mechanical valve replacement.
- History of recent myocardial infarction within the last 40 days.
- History of recent revascularization within the past 90 days.
- History of familial or genetic disorders with a high-risk of ventricular arrhythmias, such as the long QT syndrome (LQTS) or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM).
Show all 10Show fewer
- Any factors contraindicating ICD placement.
- Less than 6 months life expectancy and other clinical consideration,
- Unwilling or unable to consider ICD,
- Any contraindications to ambulati
Trial locations and contacts
2 sites in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Darlyne Esparza contact
United States2 sites, 2 recruiting
- Recruiting
Eastern Carolina University
Greenville, North Carolina, 27858
Elizabeth Jordan, +12523286131, JORDANE22@students.ecu.edu
Samuel Sears, PhD
- Recruiting
University of California, San Francisco
San Francisco, California, 94143
Daniel P Morin, MD, MPH, 415-476-4922, Daniel.Morin@ucsf.edu
Jacqueline Furrier, 415-476-4922, Jacqueline.Furrier@ucsf.edu
About this study
Official title: Digital Shared Decision-Making Aid to Improve Patient-Centered Outcomes in Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) Decisions Among Older Patients, ENHANCE-ICD (SU sIRB)
Advanced heart failure, affecting 7 million Americans, has multiple causes and results in greatly increased risk of disability and death. A major problem is sudden cardiac death, when the damaged heart develops an abnormal pattern of electrical conduction that can result in cessation of heart activity. While placement of an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) in a patient's chest can help prevent sudden cardiac death, these devices have several important downsides. This protocol focuses on development of a digital decision aid that helps heart failure patients make informed decisions that balance the benefits and downsides of ICD placement. This protocol covers the use of participant surveys, focus groups, and interviews to obtain the needed background information to guide the development of this digital tool, which will be subsequently tested against usual care in a randomized clinical trial. The study design is best described as a mixed methods evaluation and refinement of a digital app to improve ICD decision-making. In the future, the present protocol will be modified to create a new protocol that covers the needed human subjects requirements for performance of this clinical trial.
Read the detailed description
Advanced heart failure, affecting 7 million Americans, has multiple causes and results in greatly increased risk of disability and death. A major problem is sudden cardiac death, when the damaged heart develops an abnormal pattern of electrical conduction that can result in cessation of heart activity. While placement of an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) in a patient's chest can help prevent sudden cardiac death, these devices have several important downsides. This protocol focuses on development of a digital decision aid that helps heart failure patients make informed decisions that balance the benefits and downsides of ICD placement. This protocol covers the use of participant surveys, focus groups, and interviews to obtain the needed background information to guide the development of this digital tool, which will be subsequently tested against usual care in a randomized clinical trial. In the future, the present protocol will be modified to create a new protocol that covers the needed human subjects requirements for performance of this clinical trial.
Participants with heart failure who agree to participate will be recorded in a REDCap system database. The investigators will document in a recruitment tracking log all potentially eligible participants found to be ineligible or who decline participation. The reason for ineligibility or reason for decline will be captured along with age, gender, and race/ethnicity. At the time of their enrollment, the investigators will collect additional information from each participant about their employment status (full-time or part-time employment, no employment, retired), education (no postsecondary education, some postsecondary education), household size (living alone, living with at least one other person).
Participants with heart failure will be asked if they are willing to be interviewed, participate in focus groups, or complete surveys to determine their views on 1) which elements of patient outcome questionnaires are important to them; 2) which decision aid components or educational tools they like or find valuable. Interactions with participants will include open-ended interviews, focus groups, and surveys. These interviews, focus groups, and surveys will be conducted by study staff to help develop a patient-centric shared decision making software tool. Development will occur iteratively with new testing after any modifications. The same individuals may be asked to re-test the app following alterations.
Collaborating teams from UC San Francisco (Site PI: Daniel Morin, MD, MPH) and East Carolina University (Site PI: Samuel Sears, PhD) will join the study before the third month of operation. The participation of these clinical sites is not needed in the first steps on digital tool development. By successfully initiating the project at Stanford, the process of initiation at the clinical sites will be facilitated and is consistent with the mandated use of a single IRB for the three sites.
- Conditions
- Shared Decision-making
- Being tested
- Arm A: Online, patient-facing decision-making aid (app) with personalized risk information., Arm B - Online, patient-facing decision-making app without personalized risk information., Arm C - Usual Care/No Device
- Keywords
- Heart Failure, Patient Education, shared Decision-Making, Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator
- Medical subject headings
- Heart Failure
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Arm A: Online, patient-facing decision-making aid (app) with personalized risk information.Device
The online, patient-facing decision-making aid will have the following features: 1) Clinical Data Input, 2) Introduction via Animated Video, 3) Common Questions, 4) Check-In Quiz, 5) Risk and Values Exploration based on patient specific information, 6) Wrap-Up, 7) Patient-Physician Worksheet, These steps will be completed by the patient in advance of a provider visit where a shared-decision making process will decide whether an ICD is an appropriate sudden cardiac death-prevention strategy to pursue.
Arm B - Online, patient-facing decision-making app without personalized risk information.Device
The online, patient-facing decision-making aid will have the following features: 1) Clinical Data Input, 2) Introduction via Animated Video, 3) Common Questions, 4) Check-In Quiz, 5) Generic Risk and Values Exploration without patient specific information, 6) Wrap-Up, 7) Patient-Physician Worksheet, These steps will be completed by the patient in advance of a provider visit where a shared-decision making process will decide whether an ICD is an appropriate sudden cardiac death-prevention strategy to pursue.
Arm C - Usual Care/No DeviceOther
Usual Care/No Device
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Arm A: Tool with personalized information | Experimental | Arm Description: The participant will use the pre-visit, participant-facing app with personal risk information derived from participant characteristics. During a clinical encounter, the clinician will have access to an abbreviated clinician-facing digital tool that displays the same personalized information. Receives: Device: Arm A: Online, patient-facing decision-making aid (app) with personalized risk information. |
| Arm B: Tool without personalized information | Experimental | Arm Description: The participant will use the pre-visit, participant-facing app without personal risk information. During a clinical encounter, the clinician will have access to an abbreviated clinician-facing digital tool. Receives: Device: Arm B - Online, patient-facing decision-making app without personalized risk information. |
| Arm C: Usual Care | Placebo comparator | Arm Description: Participant will receive usual clinical care without use of the digital decision-making app. Receives: Other: Arm C - Usual Care/No Device |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS)
The Decisional Conflict Scale is a validated, 16-item questionnaire scale assessing whether a participant feels conflicted regarding a past medical decision. The range is 0 to 100 with higher scores indicating more conflict, a negative outcome.
Measured: Immediately after decision-making visit as well as at 3 months.
Secondary outcomes (9)
Patient Knowledge of Heart Failure and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators (ICDs)
Scale Title: PKKT-13 (13-Item Patient Knowledge Assessment)
Outcome Measure: Patient Knowledge of Heart Failure and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators (ICDs)
Description: The PKKT-13 assesses participants' knowledge of heart failure, sudden cardiac death, ICD benefits and risks, and shared decision-making. The questionnaire consists of 13 true/false/don't know questions.
Scoring: Each correct response receives 1 point; incorrect and "Don't Know" responses receive 0 points. Total scores range from 0 (minimum) to 13 (maximum).
Score Interpretation: Higher scores indicate greater patient knowledge and therefore a better outcome.
Measured: Baseline , Day 0, week 8, week 16
Decision Regret Scale
Outcome Measure Title: Decision Regret Scale (DRS)
Outcome Measure Description: The Decision Regret Scale (DRS) is a 5-item questionnaire that measures participants' regret regarding their decision to receive or decline an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Responses are scored and transformed to a total score ranging from 0 (minimum) to 100 (maximum). Higher scores indicate greater decision regret and therefore a worse outcome. A score of 0 indicates no regret, while a score of 100 indicates the highest level of regret.
Measured: Day 0, week 8, week 16
Preparation for Decision-Making Scale
Outcome Measure Title: Preparation for Decision Making Scale (PDMS)
Outcome Measure Description: The Preparation for Decision Making Scale (PDMS) is a 10-item questionnaire that measures how well educational materials and the decision-making process prepare participants to make an informed decision about receiving an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Each item is rated on a 5-point scale ranging from "Not at all" to "A great deal." The total score is calculated as the mean of the item scores, rescaled to a range of 0 (minimum) to 100 (maximum). Higher scores indicate greater preparation for decision-making and therefore a better outcome.
Measured: Day 0, Week 8, week 16
Weekly Physical Activity Assessed Using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire for the Elderly (IPAQ-E) Short Form
Weekly physical activity is assessed using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire for the Elderly (IPAQ-E) Short Form. Participants report the frequency (days per week) and duration (hours and minutes per day) of walking, moderate-intensity physical activity, and vigorous-intensity physical activity during the previous 7 days. Daily sitting time is also recorded. Physical activity is measured in minutes per week, calculated by multiplying the number of days by the average duration of each activity.
For each activity category, the minimum is 0 minutes per week. The questionnaire does not specify a maximum duration or total activity score. Higher values indicate greater physical activity, generally representing a better outcome, while higher sitting time indicates greater sedentary behavior, generally representing a worse outcome.
Measured: day 0, week 8, week 16
Clinician Satisfaction with the Decision-Making Visit (CSDA)
Clinician satisfaction with the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) decision-making visit is assessed using a clinician-completed questionnaire. Satisfaction with the patient discussion is measured using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Very dissatisfied) to 5 (Very satisfied). The minimum score is 1 and the maximum score is 5. Higher scores indicate greater clinician satisfaction and therefore a better outcome.
Measured: day 0
Patient Satisfaction with the Decision-Making Visit (PSDA)
Patient satisfaction with the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) decision-making process is assessed using a patient-reported questionnaire. The questionnaire evaluates satisfaction with the decision-making tool, worksheet, physician discussion, quality of information received, and preparation for the visit. Satisfaction items are measured using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Very dissatisfied) to 5 (Very satisfied). The minimum score is 1 and the maximum score is 5 for each item. Higher scores indicate greater patient satisfaction and therefore a better outcome.
Measured: day 0
Health-Related Quality of Life Assessed Using the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36)
The Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) is a 36-item patient-reported questionnaire that assesses health-related quality of life across eight domains: physical functioning, role limitations due to physical health, bodily pain, general health perceptions, vitality, social functioning, role limitations due to emotional problems, and mental health.
Each of the eight domains is scored on a scale ranging from 0 (minimum) to 100 (maximum). Higher scores indicate better health-related quality of life and therefore a better outcome, while lower scores indicate poorer health-related quality of life and therefore a worse outcome.
Measured: Baseline, Week 8, week 16
Heart Failure-Related Health Status Assessed Using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12)
The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) is a 12-item patient-reported questionnaire that assesses heart failure-related health status and quality of life. It evaluates four domains: physical limitations, symptom frequency, quality of life, and social limitations over the previous two weeks.
Responses are scored and transformed to a scale ranging from 0 (minimum) to 100 (maximum). Higher scores indicate better heart failure-related health status, fewer symptoms, fewer physical and social limitations, and better quality of life, representing a better outcome. Lower scores indicate worse heart failure-related health status and greater limitations, representing a worse outcome.
Measured: Baseline, Week 8, week 16
Illness Intrusiveness Assessed Using the Illness Intrusiveness Ratings Scale (IIRS)
The Illness Intrusiveness Ratings Scale (IIRS) is a 13-item patient-reported questionnaire that assesses the extent to which illness and its treatment interfere with daily life and activities. The instrument evaluates three domains: Relationships and Personal Development, Intimacy, and Instrumental Activities.
Each item is rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (Not very much) to 7 (Very much). The total score ranges from 13 (minimum) to 91 (maximum). Higher scores indicate greater illness-related interference with daily life and therefore a worse outcome, while lower scores indicate less interference and a better outcome.
Responses marked "Not applicable" are treated as missing, and total and subscale scores are prorated based on answered items.
Measured: Baseline, Week 8, week 16
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted3 Nov 2026
- Study start19 Oct 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completion31 Dec 2027 (estimated)
- Study completionFeb 2028 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Shared Decision-makingStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Stanford UniversityThe 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
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Three-arm randomized, parallel clinical trial. Arm A: digital decision-making tool with personalized risk information, Arm B: digital decision-making tool without personalized risk information, and Arm C: usual clinical care without digital tool use.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 600 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Stanford University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Randall Stafford, Stanford University
- Investigators
- Randall S Stafford, MD, PhD, Principal investigator, Stanford University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07913204
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- IRB-83551
- Other IDs
- R01HL173578, IRB-83551
- Status last verified
- Aug 2026
- First submitted
- 15 Oct 2026
- Last updated
- 3 Nov 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Upon reasonable request after January 1, 2027, IPD will be provided without cost.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 3 Nov 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Digital Shared Decision-Making Aid to Improve Patient-Centered Outcomes in Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) Decisions Among Older Patients, ENHANCE-ICD (SU sIRB)
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07913204
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- IRB-83551
- Conditions
- Shared Decision-making
- Keywords
- Heart Failure, Patient Education, shared Decision-Making, Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 600 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Stanford UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
- Study start
- 19 Oct 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 31 Dec 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Feb 2028 (estimated)
- First posted
- 3 Nov 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.
Advanced heart failure, affecting 7 million Americans, has multiple causes and results in greatly increased risk of disability and death. A major problem is sudden cardiac death, when the damaged heart develops an abnormal pattern of electrical conduction that can result in cessation of heart activity. While placement of an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) in a patient's chest can help prevent sudden cardiac death, these devices have several important downsides. This protocol focuses on development of a digital decision aid that helps heart failure patients make informed decisions that balance the benefits and downsides of ICD placement. This protocol covers the use of participant surveys, focus groups, and interviews to obtain the needed background information to guide the development of this digital tool, which will be subsequently tested against usual care in a randomized clinical trial. The study design is best described as a mixed methods evaluation and refinement of a digital app to improve ICD decision-making. In the future, the present protocol will be modified to create a new protocol that covers the needed human subjects requirements for performance of this clinical trial.
Detailed description
Advanced heart failure, affecting 7 million Americans, has multiple causes and results in greatly increased risk of disability and death. A major problem is sudden cardiac death, when the damaged heart develops an abnormal pattern of electrical conduction that can result in cessation of heart activity. While placement of an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) in a patient's chest can help prevent sudden cardiac death, these devices have several important downsides. This protocol focuses on development of a digital decision aid that helps heart failure patients make informed decisions that balance the benefits and downsides of ICD placement. This protocol covers the use of participant surveys, focus groups, and interviews to obtain the needed background information to guide the development of this digital tool, which will be subsequently tested against usual care in a randomized clinical trial. In the future, the present protocol will be modified to create a new protocol that covers the needed human subjects requirements for performance of this clinical trial.
Participants with heart failure who agree to participate will be recorded in a REDCap system database. The investigators will document in a recruitment tracking log all potentially eligible participants found to be ineligible or who decline participation. The reason for ineligibility or reason for decline will be captured along with age, gender, and race/ethnicity. At the time of their enrollment, the investigators will collect additional information from each participant about their employment status (full-time or part-time employment, no employment, retired), education (no postsecondary education, some postsecondary education), household size (living alone, living with at least one other person).
Participants with heart failure will be asked if they are willing to be interviewed, participate in focus groups, or complete surveys to determine their views on 1) which elements of patient outcome questionnaires are important to them; 2) which decision aid components or educational tools they like or find valuable. Interactions with participants will include open-ended interviews, focus groups, and surveys. These interviews, focus groups, and surveys will be conducted by study staff to help develop a patient-centric shared decision making software tool. Development will occur iteratively with new testing after any modifications. The same individuals may be asked to re-test the app following alterations.
Collaborating teams from UC San Francisco (Site PI: Daniel Morin, MD, MPH) and East Carolina University (Site PI: Samuel Sears, PhD) will join the study before the third month of operation. The participation of these clinical sites is not needed in the first steps on digital tool development. By successfully initiating the project at Stanford, the process of initiation at the clinical sites will be facilitated and is consistent with the mandated use of a single IRB for the three sites.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 3
- Model description
- Three-arm randomized, parallel clinical trial. Arm A: digital decision-making tool with personalized risk information, Arm B: digital decision-making tool without personalized risk information, and Arm C: usual clinical care without digital tool use.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Arm A: Tool with personalized information | Experimental | Device: Arm A: Online, patient-facing decision-making aid (app) with personalized risk information.Arm Description: The participant will use the pre-visit, participant-facing app with personal risk information derived from participant characteristics. During a clinical encounter, the clinician will have access to an abbreviated clinician-facing digital tool that displays the same personalized information. |
| Arm B: Tool without personalized information | Experimental | Device: Arm B - Online, patient-facing decision-making app without personalized risk information.Arm Description: The participant will use the pre-visit, participant-facing app without personal risk information. During a clinical encounter, the clinician will have access to an abbreviated clinician-facing digital tool. |
| Arm C: Usual Care | Placebo comparator | Other: Arm C - Usual Care/No DeviceArm Description: Participant will receive usual clinical care without use of the digital decision-making app. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 60 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Meets or approximates minimal criteria for primary prevention ICD placement. ● Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF) <35%.
- Clinical diagnosis of Heart Failure:
- Patients with severe ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy and underlying NYHA
- Class II or III Heart Failure, OR, Patients with severe nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy and underlying NYHA Class II or III Heart Failure.
- Age ≥ 70 years old.
Key exclusion criteria (10 listed)
- Past ICD implantation (not including pacemakers).
- Any indication for secondary prevention of SCD via ICD implantation.
- History of mechanical valve replacement.
- History of recent myocardial infarction within the last 40 days.
- History of recent revascularization within the past 90 days.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Arm A: Online, patient-facing decision-making aid (app) with personalized risk information.The online, patient-facing decision-making aid will have the following features: 1) Clinical Data Input, 2) Introduction via Animated Video, 3) Common Questions, 4) Check-In Quiz, 5) Risk and Values Exploration based on patient specific information, 6) Wrap-Up, 7) Patient-Physician Worksheet, These steps will be completed by the patient in advance of a provider visit where a shared-decision making process will decide whether an ICD is an appropriate sudden cardiac death-prevention strategy to pursue. | Device | Arm A: Tool with personalized information |
| Arm B - Online, patient-facing decision-making app without personalized risk information.The online, patient-facing decision-making aid will have the following features: 1) Clinical Data Input, 2) Introduction via Animated Video, 3) Common Questions, 4) Check-In Quiz, 5) Generic Risk and Values Exploration without patient specific information, 6) Wrap-Up, 7) Patient-Physician Worksheet, These steps will be completed by the patient in advance of a provider visit where a shared-decision making process will decide whether an ICD is an appropriate sudden cardiac death-prevention strategy to pursue. | Device | Arm B: Tool without personalized information |
| Arm C - Usual Care/No DeviceUsual Care/No Device | Other | Arm C: Usual Care |
Primary outcome
Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS)
Time frame: Immediately after decision-making visit as well as at 3 months.
The Decisional Conflict Scale is a validated, 16-item questionnaire scale assessing whether a participant feels conflicted regarding a past medical decision. The range is 0 to 100 with higher scores indicating more conflict, a negative outcome.
9 secondary outcomes
Patient Knowledge of Heart Failure and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators (ICDs)
Time frame: Baseline , Day 0, week 8, week 16
Decision Regret Scale
Time frame: Day 0, week 8, week 16
Preparation for Decision-Making Scale
Time frame: Day 0, Week 8, week 16
Weekly Physical Activity Assessed Using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire for the Elderly (IPAQ-E) Short Form
Time frame: day 0, week 8, week 16
Clinician Satisfaction with the Decision-Making Visit (CSDA)
Time frame: day 0
Patient Satisfaction with the Decision-Making Visit (PSDA)
Time frame: day 0
Health-Related Quality of Life Assessed Using the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36)
Time frame: Baseline, Week 8, week 16
Heart Failure-Related Health Status Assessed Using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12)
Time frame: Baseline, Week 8, week 16
Illness Intrusiveness Assessed Using the Illness Intrusiveness Ratings Scale (IIRS)
Time frame: Baseline, Week 8, week 16
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 3 Nov 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Upon reasonable request after January 1, 2027, IPD will be provided without cost.
Related trials for Shared Decision-making
Recruiting
Impact and Experiences of Using Patient Decisions Aids in Hospital Outpatient Mental Health Settings.
Shared Decision Making
Not yet recruiting
A Decision Support Tool for Common Surgical Fixations of Hip Fractures
Hip Fracture Surgeries, High Risk Population of Hip Fractures
Not yet recruiting
Team-Based Shared Decision-Making Program in Hypertension Control (Healthy Heart - BP Program)
Hypertension (HTN), Blood Pressure
Recruiting
The Periviable GOALS Decision Support Tool
Pregnancy Preterm, Premature Birth
Recruiting
Designing a Large Language Model Architecture for Shared Decision Making and Informed Intentions
Shared Decision Making, Health Literacy
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.
Darlyne Esparza contact
Randall S Stafford, MD, PhD principal investigator
Stanford University
2 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Arm A: Online, patient-facing decision-making aid (app) with personalized risk information. and Arm B - Online, patient-facing decision-making app without personalized risk information. in people with Shared Decision-making, run by Stanford University at 2 sites 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 6 inclusion and 10 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 3 Nov 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 2 sites 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. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. 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 Randall S Stafford, MD, PhD, MHS (650-724-2400, rstafford@stanford.edu), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) (time frame: Immediately after decision-making visit as well as at 3 months.). 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 3 Nov 2026.