Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-25 @ 4:12 AM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-26 @ 3:10 AM
Study NCT ID:
NCT01589120
Status:
UNKNOWN
Last Update Posted:
2020-11-17
First Post:
2012-04-28
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
False
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Using Videos to Facilitate Advance Care Planning for Patients With Heart Failure
Sponsor:
Massachusetts General Hospital
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Using Videos to Facilitate Advance Care Planning for Patients With Heart Failure
Status:
UNKNOWN
Status Verified Date:
2020-11
Last Known Status:
RECRUITING
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
VIDEO-HF
Brief Summary:
The purpose of this study is to compare the decision making of subjects with advanced CHF having a verbal discussion about goals of care compared to subjects using a video.
Detailed Description:
Aim #1: To compare the impact of the intervention on the distribution of end-of-life knowledge, decisional conflict, and preferences among 248 subjects with advanced heart failure randomly assigned to one of two ACP modalities: 1. a video visually depicting the goals of care along with a patient checklist (intervention, 124 subjects), or 2. usual care, i.e., verbal narrative (control, 124 subjects).
Hypothesis #1: Compared to subjects randomized to the verbal narrative group, subjects randomized to the video intervention will be significantly more likely to:
1a. Have more knowledge about their choices
1b. Have less decisional conflict about their decisions
1c. Opt for comfort care and less likely to choose life-prolonging measures
Aim #2: To compare stability of preferences over time (1, 3, and 6 months), concordance rate of preferences (preferences expressed vs. preferences documented in the medical record - both inpatient and outpatient records), and advance care planning discussions (as reported by the patient), among 248 subjects randomized to the video (N=124) vs. verbal narrative (N=124).
Hypothesis #2: Compared to subjects randomized to the verbal narrative group, subjects randomized to the video intervention will be significantly more likely to:
1a. Have more stable preferences over time
1b. Higher concordance rates
1c. Have had an advance care planning discussion
Aim #3: To compare quality of life, anxiety and depression, referral to hospice, place of death, after death bereavement (caregiver), and resource utilization after 6 months and 1 year (or death) among 248 subjects randomized to the video (N=124) vs. verbal narrative (N=124).
Hypothesis #3: Compared to subjects randomized to the verbal narrative group, subjects randomized to the video intervention will be significantly more likely to:
1a. Have a better quality of life (FACIT-Pal, FACIT-Sp-12)
1b. Have earlier referral to hospice in subjects who die
1d. Die at home or hospice (or inpatient hospice setting) in subjects who die
1e. Have better caregiver bereavement score (for caregiver subjects who die).
Hypothesis #1: Compared to subjects randomized to the verbal narrative group, subjects randomized to the video intervention will be significantly more likely to:
1a. Have more knowledge about their choices
1b. Have less decisional conflict about their decisions
1c. Opt for comfort care and less likely to choose life-prolonging measures
Aim #2: To compare stability of preferences over time (1, 3, and 6 months), concordance rate of preferences (preferences expressed vs. preferences documented in the medical record - both inpatient and outpatient records), and advance care planning discussions (as reported by the patient), among 248 subjects randomized to the video (N=124) vs. verbal narrative (N=124).
Hypothesis #2: Compared to subjects randomized to the verbal narrative group, subjects randomized to the video intervention will be significantly more likely to:
1a. Have more stable preferences over time
1b. Higher concordance rates
1c. Have had an advance care planning discussion
Aim #3: To compare quality of life, anxiety and depression, referral to hospice, place of death, after death bereavement (caregiver), and resource utilization after 6 months and 1 year (or death) among 248 subjects randomized to the video (N=124) vs. verbal narrative (N=124).
Hypothesis #3: Compared to subjects randomized to the verbal narrative group, subjects randomized to the video intervention will be significantly more likely to:
1a. Have a better quality of life (FACIT-Pal, FACIT-Sp-12)
1b. Have earlier referral to hospice in subjects who die
1d. Die at home or hospice (or inpatient hospice setting) in subjects who die
1e. Have better caregiver bereavement score (for caregiver subjects who die).
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
True
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
None
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?:
Secondary ID Infos
| Secondary ID | Type | Domain | Link | View |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1R01HL107268-01 | NIH | None | https://reporter.nih.gov/quic… | View |