Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The primary purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of values assessment tool on patient and caregiver perception of decisional conflict, and communication with their oncology clinician.
Incorporating patient values into shared decision-making is essential for individuals diagnosed with metastatic cancer. This is especially critical for women who identify as Black/African American, Latinx/Hispanic, or American Indian/Alaskan Native, as research indicates these groups face a higher risk of poor prognostic communication, worse health outcomes, and increased likelihood of metastatic cancer diagnoses compared to non-Hispanic White adults.
Black/African American women in the South, including North Carolina, experience the highest breast cancer mortality rates in the United States. In North Carolina, the majority of women diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) are either non-Hispanic White (159 per 100,000) or Black/African American (164 per 100,000). This study aims to ensure that at least 40% of participants are Black/African American women.
While the Short Graphic Values History (SGVH) tool has been used in general ambulatory care, it has not been tested or adapted for use in cancer care settings. Based on interviews with individuals living with mBC and their care partners, a new Values Assessment Tool (VAsT) has been developed for integration into cancer care.
This single-arm prospective study will enroll 40 women with mBC and their caregivers. Baseline data will be collected at diagnosis, followed by deployment of the VAsT in clinic settings. Follow-up feedback will be obtained to assess real-world usability and relevance of the tool in supporting shared decision-making in cancer care.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Values assessment tool | Experimental | Participants are assessed at baseline and every clinic visit for 3 months |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Values Assessment Tool | Behavioral | The Values Assessment Tool was provided to the participants at baseline and every clinic visit for 3 months |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Decisional engagement | Values Assessment Tool participants will be assessed using decisional engagement, Patient-Centered Communication in Cancer Care (PCC-Ca) 36. Each item included in the PCC-Ca instrument consists of a question stem and five response options. The response options are scored from 1 to 5, with higher scores representing better communication; for example, where 1 = Never and 5 = Always. There are no reverse-scored items. Some items have a sixth "does not apply" option. This response is not scored. | Baseline and every clinic visit for 3 months |
| Decisional conflict | Decisional Conflict will be assessed using the Decisional Conflict Scale (10-item low literacy version). Scoring and Interpretation: Items are given a score value of: 0 = 'yes'; 2 = 'unsure'; 4 = 'no' Total Score: 10 items [items 1-10 inclusive] are: a) summed; b) divided by 10; and c) multiplied by 25. Scores range from 0 [no decisional conflict] to 100 [extremely high decisional conflict] | Baseline and every clinic visit for 3 months |
| Communication perceptions | Communication perceptions will be assessed using Patient-Centered Communication in Cancer Care (PCC-Ca) 36. Each item included in the PCC-Ca instrument consists of a question stem and five response options. The response options are scored from 1 to 5, with higher scores representing better communication; for example, where 1 = Never and 5 = Always. There are no reverse-scored items. Some items have a sixth "does not apply" option. This response is not scored. | Baseline and every clinic visit for 3 months |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| The number of participants who started and completed | The number of participants who started and completed using the Values Assessment Tool will be presented. | Baseline and 3 months |
| Shared decision making evaluation |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Lorinda Coombs, PhD, FNP-BC, AOCNP | UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UNC Chapel Hill | Chapel Hill | North Carolina | 27599 | United States |
Not provided
| Label | URL |
|---|---|
| University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center Clinical Trials | View source |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D009369 | Neoplasms |
| D001943 | Breast Neoplasms |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D009371 | Neoplasms by Site |
| D001941 | Breast Diseases |
| D012871 | Skin Diseases |
| D017437 | Skin and Connective Tissue Diseases |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Shared decision-making will be evaluated through a combination of qualitative semi-structured interviews and audio recordings of clinical encounters with enrolled patient participants, conducted both before and after the use of the Short Graphic Values History (SGVH) tools.
Open-ended feedback from participants will undergo content analysis to identify key themes. These insights will be used to prioritize recommendations for refining the next iteration of the SGVH tool intervention.
| Baseline and 3 months |