[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"conditionNormalized\":\"decision-making-shared\",\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:decision-making-shared":31},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,11,0,[8,53,79,114,134,175,203,235,260,290,317],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":15,"eligibilityCriteria":16,"healthyVolunteers":17,"sex":18,"minAge":19,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":20,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":24,"briefSummary":26,"conditions":27,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":40,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":41,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":42,"startDateStruct":45,"completionDateStruct":47,"leadSponsor":49,"locationsCount":52},"100544950","k-orca-testing-a-decision-support-tool-and-group-process-for-selecting-interventions-100544950",false,"NCT06375551","K-ORCA: Testing a Decision Support Tool and Group Process for Selecting Interventions","Refining and Pilot Testing a Decision Support Intervention to Facilitate Adoption of Evidence-Based Programs to Improve Parent and Child Mental Health","K-ORCA","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Non-institutionalized\n* Adults (18 years or older).\n* English-Speaking\n\nAim 1:\n\n* Involved in initial state decision-making related to Family First Prevention Services Act.\n* Willing to participate in two data collection occasions.\n\nAim 2:\n\n* Non-institutionalized\n* Adults (18 years or older). English-Speaking.\n* Involved in ongoing state decision-making related to Family First Prevention Services Act.\n* Willing to participate in three measurement occasions.\n\nAim 3:\n\n-Willing to participate in multiple (bi-weekly up to two years) measurement occasions.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n-Not involved in or potentially influencing child welfare intervention decisions",true,"ALL","18 Years",{"count":21,"type":22},80,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[25],"NA","This proposal responds to NIMH Objective 4.2.c to develop \"decision-support tools and technologies that increase the effectiveness and continuous improvement of mental health interventions\" by leveraging the Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA) policy opportunity. First, a web-based platform to host (a) a decision-support tool and (b) automated facilitation for group decisions with the tool will be developed with state partners' feedback. Next, decision makers leading their states' FFPSA quality improvement efforts will be engaged to pilot a decision-support intervention comprised of the tool and live or automated facilitation, and to evaluate the implementation quality of evidence-based programs adopted with the decision-support intervention.",[28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39],"Child Abuse","Decision Making","Child Welfare","Decision Making, Shared","Decision Support Technique","Social Facilitation","Implementation Science","Policy","Organizations","Consensus","Mental Health","Family","RECRUITING","2026-06-16",{"date":43,"type":44},"2026-06-18","ACTUAL",{"date":46,"type":22},"2026-12-01",{"date":48,"type":22},"2027-07-31",{"name":50,"class":51},"Chestnut Health Systems","OTHER",1,{"id":54,"slug":55,"hasResults":11,"nctId":56,"briefTitle":57,"officialTitle":58,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":59,"healthyVolunteers":17,"sex":18,"minAge":60,"maxAge":19,"enrollmentInfo":61,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":63,"phases":4,"briefSummary":64,"conditions":65,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":69,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":70,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":71,"startDateStruct":73,"completionDateStruct":75,"leadSponsor":77,"locationsCount":4},"100642269","improving-decision-making-for-missing-upper-front-teeth-100642269","NCT07655193","Improving Decision-Making for Missing Upper Front Teeth","Development of a Patient Decision Aid for the Treatment of Maxillary Lateral Incisor Agenesis","Patient Participant Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Young people with Maxillary Lateral Incisor Agenesis (MLIA) affecting one or both maxillary lateral incisors\n* Young people aged 11-18 years old (attending with an adult with parental responsibility if \\\u003C16 years old)\n* In active orthodontic (space-closure or space-opening) or restorative treatment for MLIA, or completed active dental treatment less than one year ago\n* Attended a multidisciplinary Hypodontia Clinic for treatment planning where both space-closure and space-opening options were offered\n\nPatient Participant Exclusion Criteria:\n\n* Craniofacial anomalies including cleft lip and\u002For palate\n* Unable to communicate in English where no professional translation service is available\n\nClinician Participant Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Specialists or consultants in orthodontics, restorative dentistry, paediatric dentistry, and oral surgery who provide care as part of the Hypodontia pathway and work within the multidisciplinary hypodontia clinics\n\nClinician Participant Exclusion Criteria:\n\n* Any clinician not providing care as part of the Hypodontia pathway and working within the multidisciplinary hypodontia clinics","11 Years",{"count":62,"type":22},20,"OBSERVATIONAL","Background: The developmental absence of 1-2 upper front teeth is a common condition, affecting 1 in 50 people worldwide, and affects smile aesthetics and quality-of-life. Treatment is often undertaken in teenagers, but the outcomes have lifelong consequences. Treatment options involve either creating space for a false tooth, or closing space and disguising the adjacent tooth as the missing tooth; both options have their own advantages, disadvantages and long-term considerations, and treatment often requires input from multiple dental specialties. Advances in orthodontic techniques mean more patients can be treated with either approach, therefore, the ideal treatment plan becomes more subjective and based upon the patient's preferences.\n\nAim: To develop a Patient Decision Aid (PDA), a decision-making support tool to help young people (and parents\u002Fguardians) with developmentally missing upper front teeth choose the best treatment option for them.\n\nApproach: First, the investigators will gather information from stakeholders involved in the decision-making process to understand their needs. Interviews will be conducted with young people with developmentally missing upper front teeth and their parents\u002Fguardians about their experiences, expectations, and preferences regarding treatment decision-making. Information will also be sought from clinicians involved in this process about their experiences of the decision-making process, via focus groups. These will be carried out across two NHS hospitals with special clinics for missing teeth. Then, the information obtained from both patient and clinician stakeholder groups will help the investigators to develop a PDA, following international guidelines. PDA development will occur alongside ongoing input and feedback from a Development Panel (which will include patients and clinician representatives) to optimise content, acceptability, and accessibility. The final approved PDA will then be trialled in a later pilot study.",[66,67,68],"Hypodontia","Decision Making ,Shared","Decision Aid","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-06-15",{"date":72,"type":44},"2026-06-17",{"date":74,"type":22},"2026-08-01",{"date":76,"type":22},"2028-08-31",{"name":78,"class":51},"King's College London",{"id":80,"slug":81,"hasResults":11,"nctId":82,"briefTitle":83,"officialTitle":84,"acronym":85,"eligibilityCriteria":86,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":18,"minAge":19,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":87,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":89,"briefSummary":90,"conditions":91,"keywords":98,"overallStatus":69,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":105,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":106,"startDateStruct":108,"completionDateStruct":110,"leadSponsor":112,"locationsCount":52},"100618117","coaching-doctors-and-nurses-to-improve-ethical-decision-making-in-team-100618117","NCT07327450","Coaching Doctors and Nurses to Improve Ethical Decision-making in Team","Coaching Doctors and Nurses to Improve Ethical Decision-making in Team: a Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial in 10 Departments of the Ghent University Hospital","CODE II","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients potentially receiving excessive treatment (PET) who are identified by clinicians during their first hospitalization. PET is defined as a patient in whom 2 or more clinicians doubt whether the treatment or treatment limitation code is consistent with their expected survival or quality of life (= \"too much\" or \"excessive treatment\") or whether the treatment limitation code is in line with the patient's or relatives' goals.\n* Family members of PET\n* Junior and senior doctors (including Department Heads) taking care of hospitalized patients\n* Nurses (including head nurses) taking care of hospitalized patients\n* Allied health professionals (psychologists, physical therapists, speech therapists, occupational therapists, social workers, spiritual care providers) taking care of hospitalized patients\n* PET admitted \u002F clinicians working in the 10 participating departments of of the Ghent University Hospital (Cardiology, Gastro-enterology and Hepatology, General Internal Medicine, Geriatrics, Hematology, Medical Oncology, Neurology, Nephrology (including dialysis unit), Pulmonology and the Medical ICU)\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* PET with a previous written DNI-DNACPR order\n* Patients and family members of PET who are less than 18 years old and persons who cannot understand Ducth questionnaires",{"count":88,"type":22},360,[25],"Literature and a pilot study performed in 2019 indicate room for enhancing openness to discuss ethical sensitive issues within and between teams, and improving goal-oriented care and decision-making for the benefit of the patient at end-of-life, worldwide and more specifically in Belgium and in the Ghent University Hospital. The CODE study intervention performed in 2021 suggests already an improvement in goal oriented care operationalized via written Do-Not-Intubate and Do-Not-Attempt Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNI-DNACPR orders in the Ghent University Hospital. In this study, the investigators found a nearly doubling of the incidence in written DNI-DNACPR in patient potentially receiving excessive treatment (PET) (from 19.7% to 29.7%, p\\\u003C0.001) and in patients hospitalized for the first time (from 1.9% to 3.4%, p=0.011) without increasing one-year mortality, after coaching doctors during 4 months in self-reflective and empowering leadership, and coping with group dynamics. However, the investigators found no improvement in the perception of the quality of the ethical climate by clinicians, more specifically by nurses. Despite the fact that ethical decision-making is considered a strategic priority in the Ghent University Hospital and an intense communication campaign, clinicians identified also a much smaller number of PET during this interventional study than during the observational pilot study in 2019. Although fading attention for the study over time and visibility of the electronic CODE alert to identify PET was claimed as the main reasons by 75% and 50.7% of the nurses, respectively, 95% expressed the desire to keep on using this alert in the future. This underscores a deeper concern in nurses. More than 40% expressed fear of blaming doctors or skepticism regarding the impact of identifying PET. Nonetheless, 35% acknowledged improvement in interdisciplinary meetings about end-of-life issues since study initiation. These findings highlights the need to additionally coach the entire team in future studies. Indeed, creating a safe climate which enhances inter-professional shared decision-making for the benefit of the patient requires both, specific self-reflective and empowering leadership skills in doctors and head nurses (including the management of group dynamics in the interdisciplinary team), and confidence in speaking up in nurses and other health care professionals. This is what the investigators want to develop with this intervention. These skills will also help clinicians during patient and family meetings which will enable clinicians to better take into account the patient's and family's wishes.",[67,92,93,94,95,96,97],"Leadership","End of Life Communication","End of Life Decision Making","End of Life Patients","Ethical Sensitivities","Coaching",[97,99,100,101,102,103,104],"Shared decision-making","Goal-oriented care","Ethical climate","Leaderschip","Communication","End-of-life","2026-04-03",{"date":107,"type":44},"2026-04-09",{"date":109,"type":22},"2026-04-01",{"date":111,"type":22},"2028-06-30",{"name":113,"class":51},"University Hospital, Ghent",{"id":115,"slug":116,"hasResults":11,"nctId":117,"briefTitle":118,"officialTitle":118,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":119,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":18,"minAge":4,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":120,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":122,"briefSummary":123,"conditions":124,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":69,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":127,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":128,"startDateStruct":129,"completionDateStruct":130,"leadSponsor":132,"locationsCount":52},"100631788","informing-patients-about-their-surgerys-environmental-impact-an-effective-pathway-to-sustainable-healthcare-100631788","NCT07505238","Informing Patients About Their Surgery's Environmental Impact: an Effective Pathway to Sustainable Healthcare?","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients who were referred to three participating hospitals located across the Netherlands\n* Patients who received PatientPlus' gallstone decision aid in preparation for their surgical consultation\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* None",{"count":121,"type":22},400,[25],"The healthcare sector contributes significantly to climate change. Reducing the number of patients receiving resource-intensive procedures such as surgery can lower carbon emissions, particularly when two treatments with comparable clinical outcomes are available. Nevertheless, the impact of incorporating environmental considerations into patients' decision-making processes remains underexplored. The investigators examine how including information about the environmental impact of treatment options in a gallstone decision aid affects patients' real-life choice between surgery and the more sustainable alternative of conservative treatment. Moreover, the investigators examine whether factors such as severity of symptoms moderate the relation between sustainability information and patients' treatment choice. An exploratory vignette study informed the hypotheses that will be tested among actual patients with gallstones making actual treatment decisions. The results of this ecologically valid study have implications for both clinical practice and healthcare policy by offering insight into the effectiveness of pathways to include patients in the transition towards sustainable healthcare.",[125,126,68,67],"Sustainability","Gallstone","2026-03-25",{"date":109,"type":44},{"date":109,"type":22},{"date":131,"type":22},"2027-07-01",{"name":133,"class":51},"University of Amsterdam",{"id":135,"slug":136,"hasResults":11,"nctId":137,"briefTitle":138,"officialTitle":139,"acronym":140,"eligibilityCriteria":141,"healthyVolunteers":17,"sex":18,"minAge":19,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":142,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":144,"briefSummary":145,"conditions":146,"keywords":149,"overallStatus":40,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":168,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":169,"startDateStruct":171,"completionDateStruct":173,"leadSponsor":174,"locationsCount":52},"100581581","data2action-oregon-project-supporting-data-driven-decision-making-for-substance-use-services-policy-and-overdose-prevention-100581581","NCT06852170","Data2Action Oregon Project: Supporting Data-driven Decision-Making for Substance Use Services, Policy, and Overdose Prevention","Supporting Data-driven Decision-Making to Support Substance Use Service Expansion Policies and to Prevent Overdoses","D2A Oregon","Inclusion Criteria:\n\nSample 1: Local or Regional Decision Makers\n\n* At least 18 years old\n* Has decision-making authority within their professional role related to substance use service delivery, including leadership responsible for developing policy (e.g. executive directors) OR middle-managers (e.g., case managers, supervisor) and front-line workers responsible for service delivery decisions OR Responsible for developing local or state policy related to substance use\u002Fbehavioral health and\u002For the criminal justice system OR Advises these decision makers (e.g., legislative staff, data analysts)\n\nThese individuals will be drawn from organizations with the following perspectives: behavioral health, public health, health payer, first responders, health advocacy.\n\nSample 2: State or Local Decision Makers\n\n* At least 18 years old\n* Has decision-making authority within their professional role related to substance use service delivery, including leadership responsible for developing policy (e.g. executive directors) OR middle-managers (e.g., case managers, supervisor) and front-line workers responsible for service delivery decisions OR Responsible for developing local or state policy related to substance use\u002Fbehavioral health and\u002For the criminal justice system OR Advises these decision makers (e.g., legislative staff, data analysts)\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* None.",{"count":143,"type":22},341,[25],"Oregon's decision makers (e.g., community service providers, public health, justice, advocacy groups, payers) are calling for comprehensive, current, and trusted data to inform how they allocate resources to improve substance use services and mitigate the growing opioid and methamphetamine epidemics in their state. Consistent with the HEAL Data2Action call for Innovation projects that drive action with data in real-world settings, this study will refine and test the impact of a novel implementation strategy to engage cross- sector decision makers and make data that they identify as relevant to their decisions available to them in easy- to-use products. The proposed study aims to not only address critical knowledge gaps regarding how and when data can inform impactful, transparent decision-making, but to provide decision makers with the data that they need to achieve community-wide substance use prevention and treatment goals, including the increased delivery of high-quality, evidence-informed, services and the prevention of overdoses.",[147,31,34,29,36,148,35],"Substance Abuse","Substance-related Disorders",[150,151,152,147,34,153,154,155,35,31,36,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167],"Health Services Research","Sequential","Stepped Wedge","Decision making","Substance-related disorders","Substance abuse treatment centers","Focus Groups","Harm Reduction","Policy Making","Law Enforcement","User-Centered Design","Public Health","Opioid-Related Disorders","Naloxone","Methamphetamine","Health Disparate, Minority and Vulnerable Populations","Health Policy","Stakeholder engagement","2026-03-12",{"date":170,"type":44},"2026-03-16",{"date":172,"type":44},"2025-02-06",{"date":76,"type":22},{"name":50,"class":51},{"id":176,"slug":177,"hasResults":11,"nctId":178,"briefTitle":179,"officialTitle":180,"acronym":181,"eligibilityCriteria":182,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":18,"minAge":19,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":183,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":185,"briefSummary":186,"conditions":187,"keywords":190,"overallStatus":40,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":194,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":195,"startDateStruct":197,"completionDateStruct":199,"leadSponsor":201,"locationsCount":52},"100529403","a-stakeholder-enhanced-intervention-to-improve-the-decisional-partnership-of-chronic-kidney-disease-dyads-impart-100529403","NCT06173323","A Stakeholder-enhanced Intervention to Improve the Decisional Partnership of Chronic Kidney Disease Dyads (IMPART)","An Optimization Trial of a Stakeholder-enhanced Intervention to Improve the Decisional Partnership of Chronic Kidney Disease Dyads (IMPART)","ImPart","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients\n\n  1. Age ≥18;\n  2. EMR documented diagnosis of stage 4 CKD (2 eGFR 29-15 within 90 days);\n  3. Ability to speak and read English and complete baseline questionnaires;\n  4. Patients must have an enrolled caregiver\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients\n\n  1. Receiving hospice;\n  2. Receiving dialysis;\n  3. Medical record documentation of active unmedicated severe mental illness, moderate-severe dementia, suicidal ideation, uncorrected hearing loss, and active substance abuse.\n\nInclusion Criteria:\n\n* Caregivers\n\n  1. Age ≥18;\n  2. Self-endorsing or identified by the patient as a relative, friend, or partner that has a close relationship with you and who assists you with your medical decisions and who may or may not live in the same residence as you and who is not paid for their help\n  3. Caring for a patient with CKD;\n  4. Ability to speak and read English and complete baseline questionnaires;\n  5. Caregivers must have an enrolled patient.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Caregivers 1) Self-reported unmedicated mental illness, Moderate-severe dementia, active suicidal ideation, uncorrected hearing loss, or active substance abuse ascertained by scripted study introduction questioning.",{"count":184,"type":22},128,[25],"Using a highly innovative methodology, the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST), the purpose of this study is to pilot test, an optimization trial approach to develop and refine the decision partnering skills of persons with stage 4 chronic kidney disease and their caregivers. Using a 2x2x2 full factorial design, 64 dyads (patients and one identified caregiver) will be randomized to receive one or more lay coach-delivered decision partnering training components, based on Pearlin's Stress-Health Model of Family Caregiving and Rini's Social Support Effectiveness theory. The components include: 1) caregiver coaching on effective decision support (1 vs. 3 sessions); 2) caregiver decision support communication training (1 session vs. none); and 3) patient social support effectiveness psychoeducation (yes vs. no).",[31,188,189],"Family Caregiving","Chronic Kidney Disease",[191,192,193],"chronic kidney disease","shared decision making","family caregiving","2026-01-23",{"date":196,"type":44},"2026-01-26",{"date":198,"type":44},"2024-09-16",{"date":200,"type":22},"2028-03-31",{"name":202,"class":51},"University of Alabama at Birmingham",{"id":204,"slug":205,"hasResults":11,"nctId":206,"briefTitle":207,"officialTitle":208,"acronym":209,"eligibilityCriteria":210,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":18,"minAge":19,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":211,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":63,"phases":4,"briefSummary":213,"conditions":214,"keywords":217,"overallStatus":40,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":226,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":227,"startDateStruct":229,"completionDateStruct":231,"leadSponsor":233,"locationsCount":52},"100611627","code-status-discussions-in-muslim-icu-patients-insights-into-physician-family-communication-100611627","NCT07243041","Code Status Discussions in Muslim ICU Patients: Insights Into Physician-Family Communication","A Prospective Study Exploring Factors Affecting ICU Transitions and Handling of Code Status - Insights Into Physician and Family Communication in a Muslim Patient Population","FAITH-ICU","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* ICU physicians (residents, fellows, assistant consultants, or consultants) involved in direct patient care\n* ICU physicians who conduct code status or Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) discussions with patients' families during ICU admission\n* Willingness of ICU physicians to participate voluntarily by completing a post-goals-of-care discussion questionnaire\n* Adult patients (≥18 years) admitted to the ICU during the study period for whom a code status discussion occurred\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* ICU physicians who decline participation\n* Code status discussions involving patients younger than 18 years of age\n* Discussions in which the physician was not directly involved",{"count":212,"type":22},320,"This observational study aims to explore the real-time experiences, perceptions, and challenges faced by intensive care unit (ICU) physicians during goals-of-care discussions-specifically Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) and end-of-life decision-making conversations-with families of critically ill patients in a Muslim-majority healthcare setting.\n\nThe study seeks to identify factors that influence whether a DNAR decision is reached after physician-family discussions, and how physician experience, family dynamics, religious perspectives, and institutional support affect communication outcomes and care transitions.\n\nParticipants will include ICU physicians (residents, fellows, and consultants) who routinely conduct DNAR discussions as part of clinical care. After each discussion, physicians will complete a brief structured questionnaire about their perceptions of the interaction, family emotions, and decision outcomes. These responses will be anonymously linked to limited, de-identified patient-level data (e.g., diagnosis, ICU course, and outcome) extracted retrospectively from the electronic medical record.\n\nNo patients or family members will be contacted directly. Data collection will occur prospectively over two years at King Faisal Specialist Hospital \\& Research Centre-Jeddah.\n\nFindings from this study are expected to provide culturally grounded insights that inform physician training, enhance family-centered communication, and guide policy development for DNAR and end-of-life discussions in Muslim-majority intensive care units.",[215,216,67],"End of Life Care","Muslim",[218,219,220,221,222,223,224,225],"goals of care","do not attempt resuscitation","ICU","Shared Decision-Making","Family Communication","Muslim Healthcare Context","Cultural Factors","palliative care","2025-12-14",{"date":228,"type":44},"2025-12-19",{"date":230,"type":44},"2025-11-01",{"date":232,"type":22},"2027-10-31",{"name":234,"class":51},"King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Center",{"id":236,"slug":237,"hasResults":11,"nctId":238,"briefTitle":239,"officialTitle":240,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":241,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":18,"minAge":242,"maxAge":243,"enrollmentInfo":244,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":246,"briefSummary":247,"conditions":248,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":69,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":251,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":252,"startDateStruct":254,"completionDateStruct":256,"leadSponsor":258,"locationsCount":4},"100604489","shared-decision-making-for-families-in-critical-dialysis-initiation-100604489","NCT07150182","Shared Decision-Making for Families in Critical Dialysis Initiation","The Integrated Shared Decision-making Program of Critical Hemodialysis Initiation - the Effects on Decision Conflict, Decision Regret, Anxiety and Depression Among Family Members","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n(A)Patients: (1)Age ≥ 20 years. (2)Admitted to the ICU. (3)Diagnosed with acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring urgent hemodialysis. (4)No medical disputes occurred during the current hospitalization. (B) Family members:\n\n1. Age ≥ 20 years.\n2. Mentally alert and able to communicate in Mandarin or Taiwanese.\n3. Key person for the patient's admission (primary contact between patient, family, and medical team).\n4. Willing to participate in the clinical trial.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n(A) Patients:\n\n1. Age \\\u003C 20 years.\n2. End-stage kidney disease already receiving renal replacement therapy (including hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, or kidney transplantation). (B) Family members:\n\n(1)Unable to comply with study procedures. (2)Rarely visiting the patient (less than once every three days). (3)History of alcohol or substance abuse, mental disorders, or cognitive impairment affecting participation.","20 Years","99 Years",{"count":245,"type":22},100,[25],"Background:Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a frequent and serious complication in critically ill patients, often necessitating difficult decisions about starting hemodialysis. While shared decision-making (SDM) is known to improve communication, the effectiveness of structured SDM programs specifically designed for family members in this critical context is not well-established.\n\nAims: The primary purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a structured shared decision-making (SDM) program for family members of patients requiring critical hemodialysis initiation. We will assess the program's impact on the quality of the decision-making process (e.g., decision conflict, regret) and the psychological well-being (e.g., anxiety, depression) of the family members.\n\nMethods: This study is a parallel-group, randomized controlled trial. Eligible participants (family members of patients with AKI initiating hemodialysis) will be randomly assigned to either an intervention group or a control group. The intervention group will receive a structured SDM support program, while the control group will receive standard care. Primary outcomes, including decision conflict, decision regret, anxiety, and depression, will be measured at baseline and follow-up. Data will be analyzed using the generalized estimating equation (GEE) model to compare the effectiveness between the two groups.",[249,67,250],"Acute Kidney Injury","Emotional Dysfunction","2025-08-29",{"date":253,"type":44},"2025-09-02",{"date":255,"type":22},"2025-10-01",{"date":257,"type":22},"2026-12-31",{"name":259,"class":51},"Taipei Medical University WanFang Hospital",{"id":261,"slug":262,"hasResults":11,"nctId":263,"briefTitle":264,"officialTitle":265,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":266,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":18,"minAge":267,"maxAge":242,"enrollmentInfo":268,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":269,"briefSummary":270,"conditions":271,"keywords":276,"overallStatus":40,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":282,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":283,"startDateStruct":285,"completionDateStruct":287,"leadSponsor":288,"locationsCount":52},"100566135","decision-support-intervention-of-minor-cancer-patients-and-their-parents-100566135","NCT06651242","Decision Support Intervention of Minor Cancer Patients and Their Parents","Effectiveness Evaluation on the Decision Preferences and Decision Support Intervention of Minor Cancer Patients and Their Parents","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Inclusion Criteria for Parents:\n\n  1. Age over 20 years.\n  2. Child under 20 years old, diagnosed with cancer by a doctor.\n  3. their child know her\u002Fhis cancer diagnosis.\n  4. Agree to have the child participate in family meeting and have ability to communicate in Mandarin or Taiwanese.\n* Inclusion Criteria for Minors:\n\n  1. Aged between 7 and 20 years, diagnosed with pediatrtic cancer.\n  2. Aware of their cancer diagnosis.\n  3. Able to express their thoughts to the researcher in Mandarin or Taiwanese.\n  4. Both the minor and their legal guardian consent to participate in the study.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Diagnosed with depression, and\u002For anxiety, and\u002For other mental disorders.\n2. Legal guardian is unwilling to inform the minor of their diagnosis.\n3. Minor is unwilling to share their thoughts with their parents.","7 Years",{"count":21,"type":22},[25],"The purpose of this stuidy are: (1) to explore the information needs of parents having children with cancer when making treatment decisions; (2) to develop a Taiwan version of the Control Preferences Scale for decision support aids; (3) to implement and evaluate the effectiveness of involving minor cancer patients and their parents in treatment decision-making.",[272,273,274,275,67],"Pediatric Cancer","Adolescent Health","Decision Aids","Parents of Children With Cancer",[277,278,279,280,281],"Minor Cancer","Parents","Decision Preferences","Decision Support","Intervention","2025-08-26",{"date":284,"type":44},"2025-08-28",{"date":286,"type":44},"2022-10-26",{"date":48,"type":22},{"name":289,"class":51},"Kaohsiung Medical University Chung-Ho Memorial Hospital",{"id":291,"slug":292,"hasResults":11,"nctId":293,"briefTitle":294,"officialTitle":295,"acronym":296,"eligibilityCriteria":297,"healthyVolunteers":17,"sex":18,"minAge":19,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":298,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":23,"phases":300,"briefSummary":301,"conditions":302,"keywords":303,"overallStatus":40,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":307,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":308,"startDateStruct":310,"completionDateStruct":312,"leadSponsor":314,"locationsCount":316},"100520157","decide-shared-decision-in-health--the-real-life-impact-study-100520157","NCT06052917","DECIdE, Shared DECIsion in hEalth : the Real-life Impact Study","Impact Study of the Decision Aid DECIdE on the Decisional Conflict of Primary Care Patients About Optional Prescription Drugs.","DECIdE","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients over 18 consulting a general practitioner or community pharmacy\n* Patient complaining of a symptom or requesting a optional prescription drug (clinical situations and medicines pre-defined by expert consensus)\n* First use of DECIdE with the healthcare professional for this situation\n* Agreeing to take part in the study and to sign the written consent form\n* Speaks and understands French\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* minor patients\n* Patients under guardianship, curatorship or safeguard of justice\n* Pregnant or breast-feeding women\n* Second use of the DECIdE tool in the same situation \u002F for the same drug\n* Refusal to take part in the study\n* Patient not affiliated to a medical insurance",{"count":299,"type":22},288,[25],"The aim of the DECIdE study is to evaluate the effect of a decision aid (the DECIdE tool) for shared decision making concerning optional prescription drugs on the level of uncertainty-certainty or comfort-inconfort (= decisional conflict) experienced by patients, compared with a condition of routine care without the use of a decision aid.\n\nGeneral practitionners and pharmacists will propose to their patients, complaining of a common symptom for which a drug is usually prescribed or dispensed, to discuss this drug and the symptom in order to reach a shared decision on whether to take it or choose another alternative.",[31],[304,305,306],"primary care","decision aid","decisional conflict","2025-04-10",{"date":309,"type":44},"2025-04-13",{"date":311,"type":44},"2024-05-05",{"date":313,"type":22},"2025-09",{"name":315,"class":51},"University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand",4,{"id":318,"slug":319,"hasResults":11,"nctId":320,"briefTitle":321,"officialTitle":322,"acronym":323,"eligibilityCriteria":324,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":18,"minAge":19,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":325,"targetDuration":327,"studyType":63,"phases":4,"briefSummary":328,"conditions":329,"keywords":331,"overallStatus":69,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":335,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":336,"startDateStruct":337,"completionDateStruct":339,"leadSponsor":341,"locationsCount":4},"100586936","this-study-aims-to-quantify-decisional-regret-as-well-as-quality-of-life-in-patients-with-low--to-high-risk-cancer-and-high-burden-of-symptoms-undergoing-radiotherapy-using-established-questionnaires-100586936","NCT06921863","This Study Aims to Quantify Decisional Regret as Well as Quality of Life in Patients With Low- to High-risk Cancer and High Burden of Symptoms Undergoing Radiotherapy Using Established Questionnaires.","Decisional Regret Following Radiotherapy Against Cancer With Poor to Excellent Prognosis","DoItAgain","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Indication for radiotherapy\n* Patient information and declaration of consent\n* Patients age ≥ 18 years\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* previous radiotherapy in affected site or same localisation in group 1-3\n* Inability to answer the questionnaires\n* Pre-existing conditions with increased risk of acute or late toxicity (LiFraumeni, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis)\n* Simultaneous participation in other studies that could interfere with this study and\u002For participation before expiry of a required restriction period\n* Persons who are in a dependent\u002Femployment relationship with the investigator",{"count":326,"type":22},165,"5 Years","In this prospective registry study, patients with low-, intermediate- and high-risk tumor entities as well as patients with high symptom burden of any tumor entity in palliative constellation with indication for radiation treatment are included. This radiation treatment can be applied either as 3D-conformal RT or IGRT. The duration of treatment can range from one day to several weeks. For the primary endpoint as well as the secondary clinical and other exploratory endpoints, the 3 groups will be compared in terms of DR, QoL, toxicities and treatment plan parameters",[330,67],"Quality of Life (QOL)",[332,333,334],"Decisional Regret","Radiotherapy","Quality of Life","2025-04-03",{"date":307,"type":44},{"date":338,"type":22},"2025-07-01",{"date":340,"type":22},"2032-10-01",{"name":342,"class":51},"University Medical Center Goettingen"]