Clinical trial NCT03610555: Creating a Patient-centered Report Card for Solid Organ Transplant Candidates
Official title: Creating a Patient-centered Report Card for Solid Organ Transplant Candidates
Study type: OBSERVATIONAL
Overall status: ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
Conditions: Transplants
Lead sponsor: Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute
Sponsor class: OTHER
First posted: 2018-08-01
Enrollment: 1000
Sex: ALL
Standard ages: CHILD
ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: yes
Observational model: OTHER
Time perspective: PROSPECTIVE
Sampling method: NON_PROBABILITY_SAMPLE
Study population: All transplant candidates visiting the transplant centers at the project sites are eligible for the RCT

Brief summary: Choosing a transplant center that will accept a particular candidate can be difficult and challenging for patients with end-stage organ failure. As transplant centers have varying levels of expertise, interests, and outcomes of solid organ transplant, patient health-related characteristics influence the variation in candidates centers will accept. Most transplant candidates undergo waitlist work-ups as outpatients and many undergo transplant at centers not closest to their homes. Some are listed at more than one center. Several studies suggest that patients have a choice of centers. The PI, as Deputy Director of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR), provides comparative information to the public about each solid organ transplant center in the United States. The risk adjusted outcomes, in the report cards, account for the transplant recipient's health-related characteristics, donor characteristics and transplant related factors. Unfortunately, in their current format, the report cards are not designed for transplant candidates, many of whom may have low health literacy and numeracy.

The proposed work aims to develop and evaluate a patient-centered website and printouts of the SRTR report cards that will effectively communicate comparative information to transplant candidates about their alternatives when choosing transplant centers. We will develop a novel tool to allow candidates to tailor the report cards to their clinical profiles based on their health-related characteristics and to communicate information on alternative transplant centers that perform transplants in patients like them. Aim 1 will use focus groups to determine which transplant center characteristics to present to transplant candidates and how to present these characteristics clearly in a patient centered report card. Using this information, Aim 2 will develop a patient-centered website and printouts of the SRTR report card that effectively communicate comparative information about transplant centers to transplant candidates. Lastly, Aim 3 will conduct a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the patient centered SRTR report card. We will determine transplant candidates' comprehension and the value of the comparative quality reports, and the effect on clinical decision making and status on the waiting list. After the RCT, a convenience sample of online visitors to the new website will be assessed for similar outcomes.

Detailed description: Before the intervention, the study design with use of hypothetical scenarios will be explained to the participant. The concept of randomization will be also be explained. The participants will be asked a few questions to assess their understanding of the study design, specifically the hypothetical nature of the scenarios. We will also assess whether they understand the concept of being randomized to see one website first and then the other. Only those participants that understand the study design will be invited to participate in the intervention and will be randomized. For subjects that are randomized, a survey will be administered verbally to collect demographic information and information about their kidney disease and comorbidities. The functional health literacy and numeracy assessment and health status questionnaire will be completed. Subjects will be stratified by the transplant center site and then block randomized. One group will be shown the existing SRTR website with its existing SRTR report cards and then the website with the new patient-centered AHRQ report cards for kidney transplants. The other group will be shown the two websites in opposite order. Each participant will have at most 30 minutes to view each of the websites. After viewing each website, responses to the intervention will be collected. Sessions where participants are reviewing the websites will be recorded using Zoom. Figure 2 shows the study design whereby subjects will be block randomized once to one of the four groups consisting of 18 subjects each. At the end of the study, the patients will have access to both the websites.

The study interventions can be administered in person on a laptop. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the intervention can be administered remotely via email and zoom. The link to the websites will be sent via encrypted email and the intervention will be recorded via zoom. The recordings for subjects at Hennepin Healthcare will be stored on computers at that site.

If participant does not have your own electronic device or internet, the study will send the participant a study iPad with internet that participant can use for the intervention and then to send back to the study team. We will provide detailed instructions on how to use the iPad and Zoom application. The study will also pay for a FedEx pick up from the participants' home to return the iPad to the study team after the completion of the intervention.

Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

All adults seeking a kidney transplant are eligible for the RCT. We will focus on recruiting kidney waitlist candidates.

Exclusion criteria:

are inability to speak or understand English, visual impairment, and inability to give consent. All vulnerable populations except for those listed in the table titled vulnerable populations, will be excluded.

.

.

Primary outcomes:
measure: Comprehension of the report card
timeFrame: 30 minutes
Secondary outcomes:
measure: Perceived value of information
timeFrame: 30 minutes
measure: Measurement of satisfaction with decision making
timeFrame: 30 minutes
Other outcomes:
Locations:
city: Minneapolis
country: United States
facility: HCMC
state: Minnesota
Study officials:
References: