This Interventional clinical study aims to explore how receiving information about their health and physical abilities affects the treatment decisions of older adults. The study will look at whether sharing detailed assessments of their health and functional status helps older adults better understand their condition and make informed decisions about their care.
The main question it aims to answer is if providing this information changes the treatment priorities of older adults, helping them focus on what matters most to them in their medical care.
Age ≥ 65
Started a new qualifying index regimen within the last 30 days (inclusive)
Are being considered for a new qualifying index regimen
Patients will be excluded if they
Do not have the capacity to consent to study procedures
Are unable to complete English language questionnaires
Are already using an activity tracker on a daily basis (and therefore may be aware of their current level of activity)
Parallel
Cancer care delivery
Other interventionEarly vs. delayed sharing of GA and OFS diagnostic results and how that sharing affects patient preferences, decision- making, and satisfaction in the context of participants' cancer care.
Absolute change in QQ-Length of life from baseline to post-intervention
The QQ uses a 5-point Likert scale to rate each of the 4 questions on the QQ-L subscale. The scores for this subscale are then summed, meaning that patients will receive a score ranging from 4-20 for the QQ-L. The total score from the 4 QQ-L items measures the strength of a participant's preference for length of life, with higher scores meaning greater preference for length of life.
The secondary outcome will be the absolute change in the QQ quality of life subscale (QQ-Q) from baseline to post-intervention.
The QQ uses a 5-point Likert scale to rate each of the 4 questions on the QQ-Q subscale. The scores for the subscale are then summed, meaning that patients will receive a score ranging from 4-20 for the QQ-Q. The total score from the 4 QQ-Q items measures the strength of a participant's preference for quality of life, with higher scores meaning greater preference for quality of life.
The proportion of patients who, on the Was It Worth It (WIWI) questionnaire, report that their treatment was worthwhile, that they would undergo it again, and that they would recommend it to others.
The proportion of patients who, on the Was It Worth It (WIWI) questionnaire, report that their treatment was worthwhile, that they would undergo it again, and that they would recommend it to others.
Summary/descriptive statistics for participants' answers to the preferences questionnaire.
It inquires about their preferences for receipt, use and sharing of their assessment results, along with the degree to which receipt of these results affected their understanding or approach to their care
Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.
Fox Chase Cancer Center
Lead sponsor
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC
Collaborator
