Investigators aim to test a culturally diverse and patient guided mHealth decision tool called mychoice, which allows patients to explore their concerns and questions related to clinical trial participation, as well as create a customized and personalized set of questions to enhance patient-provider communication and increase informed decision making. This study employs a mixed-methods approach using both qualitative and quantitative data to evaluate the effectiveness of the mychoice intervention for patients and to explore the provider and organizational factors that impact implementation. A randomized controlled trial will be performed with 270 participants in order to determine the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention, as well as its effects on self-efficacy in discussing clinical trial participation with providers, leading to enhanced informed decision-making. A secondary aim of the study is to evaluate the implementation of the intervention in clinical settings. Implementation evaluation will occur using surveys of medical staff whose patients are participating in the study. These surveys will assess institutional facilitators and barriers to study implementation. Investigators will also conduct cognitive de-briefing interviews after the intervention is completed with key stakeholders at the participating institutions, which will inform a larger implementation study in the future.

Evidence shows that although clinical trials are aimed at producing new strategies for reducing cancer morbidity and mortality, participation remains sub-optimal for all populations, especially those from racial and ethnic groups. Although some interventions have been found to be effective at enhancing participation, few studies have tested tailored communication activities using innovative communication techniques (perceptual mapping) with aims to address barriers and facilitators for patients and facilitate more engaged discussions with their providers in real world settings.

Participation in clinical trials is a serious and complex decision, and many patients of all races and backgrounds have limited knowledge and understanding of clinical trials as a treatment option. Although research has been conducted to explore the barriers to participation, there has been a call for more intervention research to address these barriers. A fundamental aspect of patient focused interventions is an exploration of their personal questions and concerns, without which it is difficult for patients to become empowered to participate in an informed or shared decision making process. However, there remains limited empirical research to suggest which messages are most salient to a diverse range of patients to improve decision making, and how decision tools can be tailored to enhance patient-provider communication. This research will provide insight into that process when the decision is participation in clinical trials.

Evidence shows that ethnic and racial minorities are significantly underrepresented in clinical trials, which is critical to producing new strategies for reducing cancer morbidity and mortality for all populations. Recognizing the complexity of barriers to participation in clinical trials, research has focused on potential strategies to enhance participation. Interventions have shown that provider referrals of minority patients, community outreach, acknowledging and addressing issues of trust, flexibility in intervention methods, and population targeted materials are effective. Few studies, however, have tested tailored communication activities to address barriers and facilitators for patients using innovative communication techniques in real world settings - meaning ways these activities can be integrated into the healthcare workflow - or addressed the unique needs of racial and ethnic minorities.

The mychoice communication tool begins to prepare patients to participate in a personal and tailored discussion with their provider about clinical trials as a potential treatment option. The tool is also customized to address the concerns of those least likely to participate, instead of providing a more general look at clinical trials- a common trait of other available tools. Previous research has shown that patient education before the first oncologist visit improves knowledge, attitudes, and preparation for decision making about clinical trials and integrating these tools into the clinical encounter is critical. In addition, using innovative communication techniques (perceptual mapping and vector modeling) to validate and explore notable messages across diverse cancer patients provided new insights into tailoring messages and personalizing patient/provider communication. Insight gained from validation of the intervention will improve the decision making process and inform a large scale integration of mychoice to affect patient perceptions and increase willingness to participate in clinical trials, especially in minority patients.

In addition, Investigators will assess barriers to implementation when introducing the tool in diverse cancer centers, each with different protocols and patient populations, to inform a future proposal. Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Science (CFIR), one of the predominant implementation science research frameworks, we will focus on five domains: intervention characteristics, outer settings, inner setting, characteristics of individuals (patients and providers), and process. Implementation science is becoming an important component of intervention implementation and we aim to use this framework to ensure success.

Inclusion Criteria:

• 18 years of age or over
• Active diagnosis of invasive cancer (any diagnoses), pre or post chemo/radiation/surgery
• Able to speak and read English

Exclusion Criteria:

• Participated in a therapeutic trial in the past

The number of participants in the Baseline Analysis Population only includes participants who completed the baseline survey in it's entirety. 257 participants were consented and joined the study; however, they did not complete any study tasks and no data was completed at baseline. 250 participants completed baseline.

Adverse event data were collected between baseline and one-month follow-up.

This was a minimal risk study.