Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Study was not approved in 2020 secondary to COVID-19 restrictions on trials
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| Colorado State University | OTHER |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Patients with cancer and their caregivers may have difficulty understanding the site and extent of their disease. Poor comprehension may negatively impact patients and caregivers, leading to increased anxiety, reduced compliance, decreased trust of the physician, and limited shared medical decision making ability. Most patients want to be thoroughly informed, with over a third of cancer patients wishing they had been better informed about side effects that they experienced due to their treatment. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of diagnostic imaging review using 3D virtual reality compared to standard 2D imaging review for patients and their caregiver(s) using a mixed methods approach of survey and qualitative interview based approaches.
This study will use virtual reality to display the patient's diagnostic imaging in 3D with live volumetric rendering. This study will explore if this approach improves patient and caregiver understanding of their disease. Eligible patients should have available diagnostic imaging consisting of CT, MRI, and/or PET-CT. Prior to their consultation in radiation oncology, patients will complete a survey about their prior experience reviewing their diagnostic imaging. During the consultation, patients and caregivers will be shown their medical imaging in 2D on a computer screen, then in 3D with virtual reality. After the consultation, the patient and caregiver(s) will complete a 2nd survey comparing virtual reality to standard imaging review with domains of perceived understanding, patient preference, and satisfaction. Then, the patient and caregiver(s) will undergo a qualitative interview exploring their experience with virtual reality compared to standard imaging review. The survey questions comparing virtual reality to standard imaging review will be statistically evaluated. The recorded interview session will be qualitatively analyzed using with a mixed methods approach by thematically categorizing the respondents' answers.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Virtual Reality for imaging review | Experimental | Each participant (patient and caregiver(s)) will undergo standard 2D imaging review on a computer screen, followed by 3D imaging review in virtual reality during their radiation oncology consultation |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Survey and interview | Other | Patients and caregivers will provide information via surveys and interviews regarding their experience viewing diagnostic imaging using conventional methods and using Virtual Reality |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Successful Completion of Imaging Review Using Virtual Reality | The percentage of patients able to complete the review of their imaging using virtual reality | During the consultation 1 day visit |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Satisfaction and preference | Evaluate patients' and caregivers' satisfaction and preferences regarding diagnostic imaging review using a focused survey | During the consultation 1 day visit |
| Qualitative feedback regarding imaging review using virtual reality |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| University of Colorado, Anschutz Cancer Center | Aurora | Colorado | 80015 | United States |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1882153 | Background | Fernsler JI, Cannon CA. The whys of patient education. Semin Oncol Nurs. 1991 May;7(2):79-86. doi: 10.1016/0749-2081(91)90085-4. | |
| 16563940 | Background | Gold DT, McClung B. Approaches to patient education: emphasizing the long-term value of compliance and persistence. Am J Med. 2006 Apr;119(4 Suppl 1):S32-7. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.12.021. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D011795 | Surveys and Questionnaires |
| D007407 | Interviews as Topic |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D003625 | Data Collection |
| D004812 | Epidemiologic Methods |
| D008919 | Investigative Techniques |
| D017531 | Health Care Evaluation Mechanisms |
Not provided
Not provided
Single Arm Exploratory Study
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Collect patients' and caregivers' feedback regarding imaging review using virtual reality through qualitative interviews. |
| During the consultation 1 day visit |
| Baseline demographics and imaging review experience | Capture baseline demographics, education, and prior experience with diagnostic imaging review. | During the consultation 1 day visit |
| Intervention time interval | Measure the time spent reviewing diagnostic imaging with virtual reality and standard approaches relative to the consultation time | During the consultation 1 day visit |
| 24846702 | Background | Hess CB, Chen AM. Measuring psychosocial functioning in the radiation oncology clinic: a systematic review. Psychooncology. 2014 Aug;23(8):841-54. doi: 10.1002/pon.3521. Epub 2014 May 21. |
| 18769996 | Background | Takahashi T, Hondo M, Nishimura K, Kitani A, Yamano T, Yanagita H, Osada H, Shinbo M, Honda N. Evaluation of quality of life and psychological response in cancer patients treated with radiotherapy. Radiat Med. 2008 Aug;26(7):396-401. doi: 10.1007/s11604-008-0248-5. Epub 2008 Sep 4. |
| 15572437 | Background | Johnson A, Sandford J. Written and verbal information versus verbal information only for patients being discharged from acute hospital settings to home: systematic review. Health Educ Res. 2005 Aug;20(4):423-9. doi: 10.1093/her/cyg141. Epub 2004 Nov 30. |
| 7600475 | Background | Theis SL, Johnson JH. Strategies for teaching patients: a meta-analysis. Clin Nurse Spec. 1995 Mar;9(2):100-5, 120. doi: 10.1097/00002800-199503000-00010. |
| 21161465 | Background | Friedman AJ, Cosby R, Boyko S, Hatton-Bauer J, Turnbull G. Effective teaching strategies and methods of delivery for patient education: a systematic review and practice guideline recommendations. J Cancer Educ. 2011 Mar;26(1):12-21. doi: 10.1007/s13187-010-0183-x. |
| 19024286 | Background | Press Ganey: public reporting gives huge boost to patient satisfaction. Healthcare Benchmarks Qual Improv. 2008 Dec;15(12):121-3. |
| 8819442 | Background | Meredith C, Symonds P, Webster L, Lamont D, Pyper E, Gillis CR, Fallowfield L. Information needs of cancer patients in west Scotland: cross sectional survey of patients' views. BMJ. 1996 Sep 21;313(7059):724-6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7059.724. |
| 31747336 | Background | Shaverdian N, Yeboa DN, Gardner L, Harari PM, Liao K, McCloskey S, Tuli R, Vapiwala N, Jagsi R. Nationwide Survey of Patients' Perspectives Regarding Their Radiation and Multidisciplinary Cancer Treatment Experiences. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Dec;15(12):e1010-e1017. doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00376. Epub 2019 Nov 20. |
| D011787 | Quality of Health Care |
| D017530 | Health Care Quality, Access, and Evaluation |
| D011634 | Public Health |
| D004778 | Environment and Public Health |