Participants will access the publicly available education resource via their login to a secure website. After three months, participants will gain access to the investigator-designed educational resource (research intervention) and will have an additional three months of access to both of these resources.

Decisional Conflict Scale change will be measured from the baseline study visit to the 3-month study visit. The intention-to-treat analysis will compare mean change in the Decisional Conflict Scale between the intervention and control arms of the study. Scores range from 0 [no decisional conflict] to 100 [extremely high decisional conflict].

Likert rating of preparedness to discuss lung transplant will be measured at each study visit (0=Don't know, 1= Not at all prepared, 2 = A little prepared, 3 = Moderately prepared, 4 = Very prepared). The intention-to-treat analysis will compare mean change in Likert-scale rating between the intervention and attention-control arms of the study using linear mixed models.

PHQ-9 is a scale that measures symptoms of depression in the prior 2 weeks on a 0-27 scale, with higher scores indicating worsening depression and a score of 10 or higher consistent with a diagnosis of depression. The intention-to-treat analysis will compare mean change in PHQ-9 between the intervention and attention-control arms of the study using linear mixed models. Investigators will also determine the proportion with new PHQ-9 score greater than or equal to 10 in each arm.

GAD-7 is a scale that measures symptoms of anxiety in the prior 2 weeks on a 0-21 scale, with higher scores indicating worsening anxiety and a score of 10 or higher consistent with a diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder. The intention-to-treat analysis will compare mean change in GAD-7 between the intervention and attention-control arms of the study using linear mixed models. Investigators will also determine the proportion with new GAD-7 score greater than or equal to 10 in each arm.

Change in confidence-weighted true false knowledge about lung transplant (14-question investigator-designed survey) will be assessed from baseline to 6-months and from 3-month to 6-month study visits. Mean difference in the change in knowledge score will be compared between study arms for the two time periods (0 to 6 months and 3 to 6 months). Higher scores indicate more knowledge about lung transplant.

Change in Decisional Conflict Scale will be assessed from baseline to 6-months and from 3-month to 6-month study visits. Mean difference in the change in Decisional Conflict Scale will be compared between study arms for the two time periods (0 to 6 months and 3 to 6 months). Scores range from 0 [no decisional conflict] to 100 [extremely high decisional conflict].

Evaluate the proportion "Very prepared" at baseline, 3-months and 6-months in the intervention and control arms. Compare proportions across study arms at each time point.

Average time spent using the research website from baseline to 3-months will be compared across study arms. Further, time spent using the investigator-designed website will be assessed as a predictor of: 1. change in confidence-weighted true false knowledge about lung transplant (14-question investigator-designed survey) from baseline to 3-month study visit, 2. change in Likert preparedness from baseline to 3-month study visit, 3. change in Decisional Conflict Scale from baseline to 3-month study visit, and 4. mean PrepDM Scale at 3-months.

The analysis will be an intention-to-treat assessment of the difference in mean Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) in the intervention versus attention-control arms of the study at the routine CF Clinic visit using linear mixed models. The SDM-Q-9 scale has a range of (0 to 45), with higher scores indicating higher quality of shared decision making from the patient's perspective. A change in SDM-Q-9 of 12 to 15 has been considered clinically meaningful.

The analysis will be an intention-to-treat assessment of the difference in mean Shared Decision Making Questionnaire for physicians (SDM-Q-doc) in the intervention versus attention-control arms of the study at the routine CF Clinic visit using linear mixed models. The SDM-Q-doc scale has a range of (0 to 45), with higher scores indicating higher quality of shared decision making from the physician's perspective.

In a prespecified subgroup analysis, investigators will assess the Preparedness for Shared Decision Making (PrepDM) Scale at 3 months within the cohort of participants who are members of communities of concern. This is an intention-to-treat assessment of the difference in mean Preparedness for Shared Decision Making (PrepDM) Scale in the intervention versus attention-control arms of the study at the 3-month study visit using linear mixed models in the subset of individuals who are members of communities of concern (Medicaid insurance, high-school education or less, Hispanic ethnicity, Black/Asian/Other race). Scores range on a scale from 0 to 100 with higher scores indicating a higher perceived level of preparation for decision making.

In a prespecified subgroup analysis, investigators will assess Decisional Conflict Scale change within the cohort of participants who are members of communities of concern (Medicaid insurance, high-school education or less, Hispanic ethnicity, Black/Asian/Other race). Decisional Conflict Scale change will be measured from the baseline study visit to the 3-month study visit. The intention-to-treat analysis will compare mean change in the Decisional Conflict Scale between the intervention and control arms of the study in the subset of individuals who are members of communities of concern. Scores range from 0 [no decisional conflict] to 100 [extremely high decisional conflict].

In a prespecified subgroup analysis, investigators will assess the difference in mean change from baseline to 3 months in Confidence-weighted true false (CTF) knowledge score will be measured in the intervention versus control arms of the study using linear mixed models within the cohort of participants who are members of communities of concern (Medicaid insurance, high-school education or less, Hispanic ethnicity, Black/Asian/Other race). CTF scoring adds points for certainty in correct responses and deducts points for certainty in incorrect responses. Participants receive +2 points when "sure" about a correct response, +1 if unsure about a correct response, -1 if unsure about an incorrect response and -2 if sure about an incorrect response. For a 14-item knowledge test, the maximum score is +28 and the minimum score is -28, with higher scores indicating more knowledge about lung transplant.

In a prespecified subgroup analysis, investigators will assess change from baseline to 3 months in Likert rating of preparedness to discuss lung transplant within the cohort of participants who are members of communities of concern (Medicaid insurance, high-school education or less, Hispanic ethnicity, Black/Asian/Other race). The intention-to-treat analysis will compare mean change in the Likert rating of preparedness to discuss lung transplant between the intervention and control arms of the study in the subset of individuals who are members of communities of concern. Likert rating of preparedness to discuss lung transplant will be measured at each study visit (0=Don't know, 1= Not at all prepared, 2 = A little prepared, 3 = Moderately prepared, 4 = Very prepared).

Recordings will be listened to by at least two members of the study team for assessment or implicit bias (e.g. speech rate, verbal dominance) and whether the topic of LTx is raised with different frequency among participants from communities of concern.