Trial Outcomes & Findings for Lay Health Worker Engage, Educate, and Encourage Patients to Share (NCT NCT03699748)

NCT ID: NCT03699748

Last Updated: 2023-07-07

Results Overview

Each patient will receive a quality of life survey (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General Survey) at baseline and 4 months. We will measure the change in quality of life at baseline to 4 months. Scores for quality of life will be assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G), a 27-item questionnaire designed to measure four domains of HRQOL in cancer patients: Physical, social, emotional, and functional well-being. Each question is a 5-point likert scale item. Scores range from 0-108. The higher the score, the better the quality of life.

Recruitment status

COMPLETED

Study phase

NA

Target enrollment

160 participants

Primary outcome timeframe

Change in Quality of Life from Baseline to 4 Months

Results posted on

2023-07-07

Participant Flow

Participant milestones

Participant milestones
Measure
Usual Care Control Group
The control group arm participants receive usual care as provided by Unite Here Health and their local oncologists.
Lay Health Worker Intervention Group
Patients randomized into the intervention are assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention, including: education on early advance care planning, documenting goals of care, assessing symptoms, and coordinating community services (such as home health, home visits, and home hospice). The intervention arm participants also receive usual care as provided by Unite Here Health and their local oncologists.
Overall Study
STARTED
80
80
Overall Study
Completed Baseline Survey
80
80
Overall Study
Completed 4 Month Survey
74
71
Overall Study
Completed 12 Month Survey
59
57
Overall Study
COMPLETED
58
57
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
22
23

Reasons for withdrawal

Withdrawal data not reported

Baseline Characteristics

Lay Health Worker Engage, Educate, and Encourage Patients to Share

Baseline characteristics by cohort

Baseline characteristics by cohort
Measure
Usual Care Control Group
n=80 Participants
The control group arm participants receive usual care.
Lay Health Worker Intervention Group
n=80 Participants
Patients randomized into the intervention are assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention, and also receive usual care.
Total
n=160 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
Age, Continuous
58 years
n=99 Participants
58 years
n=107 Participants
58 years
n=206 Participants
Sex/Gender, Customized
Male
37 Participants
n=99 Participants
38 Participants
n=107 Participants
75 Participants
n=206 Participants
Sex/Gender, Customized
Female
42 Participants
n=99 Participants
41 Participants
n=107 Participants
83 Participants
n=206 Participants
Sex/Gender, Customized
Non-binary
1 Participants
n=99 Participants
1 Participants
n=107 Participants
2 Participants
n=206 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
21 Participants
n=99 Participants
26 Participants
n=107 Participants
47 Participants
n=206 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
59 Participants
n=99 Participants
54 Participants
n=107 Participants
113 Participants
n=206 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
0 Participants
n=107 Participants
0 Participants
n=206 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
2 Participants
n=107 Participants
2 Participants
n=206 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
18 Participants
n=99 Participants
13 Participants
n=107 Participants
31 Participants
n=206 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
1 Participants
n=99 Participants
0 Participants
n=107 Participants
1 Participants
n=206 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
23 Participants
n=99 Participants
21 Participants
n=107 Participants
44 Participants
n=206 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
38 Participants
n=99 Participants
44 Participants
n=107 Participants
82 Participants
n=206 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
0 Participants
n=107 Participants
0 Participants
n=206 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
0 Participants
n=107 Participants
0 Participants
n=206 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
80 Participants
n=99 Participants
80 Participants
n=107 Participants
160 Participants
n=206 Participants
Annual household income
< $25,000
10 Participants
n=99 Participants
14 Participants
n=107 Participants
24 Participants
n=206 Participants
Annual household income
≥ $25,000 to $34,999.00
50 Participants
n=99 Participants
53 Participants
n=107 Participants
103 Participants
n=206 Participants
Annual household income
≥ $35,000 to $49,999.00
20 Participants
n=99 Participants
13 Participants
n=107 Participants
33 Participants
n=206 Participants
City
Atlantic City, NJ
53 Participants
n=99 Participants
55 Participants
n=107 Participants
108 Participants
n=206 Participants
City
Chicago, IL
27 Participants
n=99 Participants
25 Participants
n=107 Participants
52 Participants
n=206 Participants
Education Level
Less than high school
61 Participants
n=99 Participants
68 Participants
n=107 Participants
129 Participants
n=206 Participants
Education Level
High school
15 Participants
n=99 Participants
10 Participants
n=107 Participants
25 Participants
n=206 Participants
Education Level
2-year college or Bachelor degree
4 Participants
n=99 Participants
2 Participants
n=107 Participants
6 Participants
n=206 Participants
Anatomic site of cancer diagnosis
Breast
22 Participants
n=99 Participants
15 Participants
n=107 Participants
37 Participants
n=206 Participants
Anatomic site of cancer diagnosis
Gastrointestinal
16 Participants
n=99 Participants
14 Participants
n=107 Participants
30 Participants
n=206 Participants
Anatomic site of cancer diagnosis
Genitourinary
10 Participants
n=99 Participants
9 Participants
n=107 Participants
19 Participants
n=206 Participants
Anatomic site of cancer diagnosis
Lung
10 Participants
n=99 Participants
11 Participants
n=107 Participants
21 Participants
n=206 Participants
Anatomic site of cancer diagnosis
Ovarian
5 Participants
n=99 Participants
8 Participants
n=107 Participants
13 Participants
n=206 Participants
Anatomic site of cancer diagnosis
Malignant hematologic
7 Participants
n=99 Participants
11 Participants
n=107 Participants
18 Participants
n=206 Participants
Anatomic site of cancer diagnosis
Head and Neck
2 Participants
n=99 Participants
5 Participants
n=107 Participants
7 Participants
n=206 Participants
Anatomic site of cancer diagnosis
Other (skin, soft tissue, brain)
8 Participants
n=99 Participants
7 Participants
n=107 Participants
15 Participants
n=206 Participants

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Change in Quality of Life from Baseline to 4 Months

Population: Participants who completed the survey at each respective time point are included in the analysis.

Each patient will receive a quality of life survey (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General Survey) at baseline and 4 months. We will measure the change in quality of life at baseline to 4 months. Scores for quality of life will be assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G), a 27-item questionnaire designed to measure four domains of HRQOL in cancer patients: Physical, social, emotional, and functional well-being. Each question is a 5-point likert scale item. Scores range from 0-108. The higher the score, the better the quality of life.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Usual Care Control Group
n=80 Participants
The control group arm participants receive usual care.
Lay Health Worker Intervention Group
n=80 Participants
Patients randomized into the intervention are assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention, and also receive usual care.
Patient Quality of Life Using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General Survey
Baseline
74.1 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.5
73.5 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 15.8
Patient Quality of Life Using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General Survey
Month 4
70.3 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.8
80.7 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.4

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Proportion of patients who strongly agree that decisions about their health care were theirs to make at 4 months post study enrollment.

Population: At 4 Months, 74 (92.5%) in the control group and 71 (88.8%) in the intervention group completed this survey and 6 (7.5%) participants in the control group and 9 (11.3%) participants in the intervention group had died by the time of this assessment.

The validated Satisfaction with Decision (SWD) Survey was administered to all participants at 4 months after study enrollment. The SWD is a 6-item questionnaire, where respondents rate their agreement with 6 statements (e.g. "I am satisfied that I am adequately informed about the issues important to my decision") on a likert-type scale. Answer options were (1) Strongly Disagree; (2) Disagree; (3) Neither Agree nor Disagree; (4) Agree; (5) Strongly Agree. Responses to each item were averaged to give a score of 0 to 5 where 0 indicated lowest satisfaction and 5 indicated most satisfied with decision making. Scores for each group were averaged at 4 months after study enrollment. Results are expressed as a proportion of participants who responded "strongly agree" at 4 months post-enrollment on the SWD scale, which measured ratings of decision-making. Changes in the proportion of participants who responded "strongly agree" are reflected from baseline to 4 months post-enrollment.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Usual Care Control Group
n=74 Participants
The control group arm participants receive usual care.
Lay Health Worker Intervention Group
n=71 Participants
Patients randomized into the intervention are assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention, and also receive usual care.
Patient Satisfaction With Decision-Making Using the Satisfaction With Decision (SWD) Survey
23 Participants
64 Participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Proportion of patients who strongly agree that decisions about their health care were theirs to make at 12 months post study enrollment.

Population: A total of 59 participants (73.8%) in the control group and 56 (70.0%) in the intervention group completed this survey question at 12-months post study enrollment; 21 (26.3%) participants in the control group and 23 (28.8%) participants in the intervention group had died at the time of the 12-month assessment.

The validated Satisfaction with Decision (SWD) Survey was administered to all participants at 12 months after study enrollment. The SWD is a 6-item questionnaire, where respondents rate their agreement with 6 statements (e.g. "I am satisfied that I am adequately informed about the issues important to my decision") on a likert-type scale. Answer options were (1) Strongly Disagree; (2) Disagree; (3) Neither Agree nor Disagree; (4) Agree; (5) Strongly Agree. Responses to each item were averaged to give a score of 0 to 5 where 0 indicated lowest satisfaction and 5 indicated most satisfied with decision making. Scores for each group are averaged at 12 months after study enrollment. Results are expressed as a proportion of participants who responded "strongly agree" at 12 months post-enrollment on the SWD scale, which measured ratings of decision-making. Changes in the proportion of participants who responded "strongly agree" are reflected from baseline to 12 months.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Usual Care Control Group
n=59 Participants
The control group arm participants receive usual care.
Lay Health Worker Intervention Group
n=56 Participants
Patients randomized into the intervention are assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention, and also receive usual care.
Patient Satisfaction With Decision-Making Using the Satisfaction With Decision Survey
16 Participants
48 Participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Change in Patient Activation Measure from baseline to 4 months post enrollment.

Population: Missingness was only observed due to death among 6 (7.5%) participants in the control group and 9 (11.3%) participants in the intervention group who had died prior to the 4-month assessment.

Each patient will receive the 13-item Patient Activation Measure (PAM-13) at 4 months after study enrollment. This is a validated measure from Insignia Health. Each item is rated on 4-point scale (1 strongly disagree to 4 strongly agree, with additional "not applicable" option). Higher scores indicate greater patient activation. For the PAM-13, minimum score is 0 and maximum is 100. Raw scores are converted into activation levels per the scoring guidelines by Insignia Health for: level 1 Disengaged and Overwhelmed, level 2 Becoming Aware but Still Struggling, level 3 Taking Action and Gaining Control, level 4 Maintaining Behaviors and Pushing Further. Scores for each group will be averaged at 4 months after study enrollment.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Usual Care Control Group
n=74 Participants
The control group arm participants receive usual care.
Lay Health Worker Intervention Group
n=71 Participants
Patients randomized into the intervention are assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention, and also receive usual care.
Patient Activation Using the Patient Activation Measure Survey
Baseline
53.5 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 10.3
53.4 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 9.80
Patient Activation Using the Patient Activation Measure Survey
4 Months
53.3 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 10.1
65.9 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 14.7

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Change in Patient Activation Measure from baseline to 12 months post-enrollment.

Population: Missingness was only observed due to death among 21 (26.3%) participants in the control group and 23 (28.8%) participants in the intervention group who had died prior to this 12-month assessment.

Each patient will receive the 13-item Patient Activation Measure (PAM-13) at 12 months after study enrollment. This is a validated measure from Insignia Health. Each item is rated on 4-point scale (1 strongly disagree to 4 strongly agree, with additional "not applicable" option). Higher scores indicate greater patient activation. For the PAM-13, minimum score is 0 and maximum is 100 (highest level of activation). Raw scores are converted into activation levels per the scoring guidelines by Insignia Health for: level 1 Disengaged and Overwhelmed, level 2 Becoming Aware but Still Struggling, level 3 Taking Action and Gaining Control, level 4 Maintaining Behaviors and Pushing Further. Scores for each group will be averaged 12 months after study enrollment.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Usual Care Control Group
n=58 Participants
The control group arm participants receive usual care.
Lay Health Worker Intervention Group
n=57 Participants
Patients randomized into the intervention are assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention, and also receive usual care.
Patient Activation Using the Patient Activation Measure Survey
57.6 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 10.8
77.7 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 11.2

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Health-related quality of life at 12 months

Population: Participants who completed the survey at 12 months are included in the analysis.

Each patient will receive a quality of life survey (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General Survey) at 12 months. Scores for quality of life will be assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General Survey-General survey. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) is a 27-item questionnaire designed to measure four domains of HRQOL in cancer patients: Physical, social, emotional, and functional well-being. Each question is a 5-point likert scale item. Scores range from 0-108. The higher the score, the better the quality of life.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Usual Care Control Group
n=59 Participants
The control group arm participants receive usual care.
Lay Health Worker Intervention Group
n=57 Participants
Patients randomized into the intervention are assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention, and also receive usual care.
Patient Quality of Life Using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General Survey
73.3 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 15.6
84.4 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.5

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: 4 months after patient enrollment

Population: All enrolled participants

Emergency Department Use for each patient will be abstracted by electronic medical record chart review for each patient at 4 months after enrollment.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Usual Care Control Group
n=80 Participants
The control group arm participants receive usual care.
Lay Health Worker Intervention Group
n=80 Participants
Patients randomized into the intervention are assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention, and also receive usual care.
Emergency Department Visit (Chart Review)
15 Emergency Department Visits
12 Emergency Department Visits

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: 12 months after patient enrollment

Emergency Department Use for each patient will be abstracted by electronic medical record chart review for each patient at 12 months after enrollment.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Usual Care Control Group
n=80 Participants
The control group arm participants receive usual care.
Lay Health Worker Intervention Group
n=80 Participants
Patients randomized into the intervention are assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention, and also receive usual care.
Emergency Department Visit (Chart Review)
24 Emergency Department Visits
27 Emergency Department Visits

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Last 30 days of life up to 12 months from patient enrollment

Population: Sample of 21 participants in the control group and 23 participants in the intervention group who died within 12 months of study enrollment.

Emergency Department Use will be abstracted by electronic medical record chart review for each patient who is deceased within 12 months of enrollment, looking at their ER visits during the last 30 days of life.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Usual Care Control Group
n=21 Participants
The control group arm participants receive usual care.
Lay Health Worker Intervention Group
n=23 Participants
Patients randomized into the intervention are assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention, and also receive usual care.
Emergency Department Visit (Chart Review)
3 Emergency Department Visits
1 Emergency Department Visits

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: 4 months after patient enrollment

Hospitalization use for each patient will be abstracted by electronic medical record chart review for each patient at 4 months after enrollment.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Usual Care Control Group
n=80 Participants
The control group arm participants receive usual care.
Lay Health Worker Intervention Group
n=80 Participants
Patients randomized into the intervention are assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention, and also receive usual care.
Hospitalization Visit (Chart Review)
16 Hospital Visits
32 Hospital Visits

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: 12 months after study enrollment

Hospitalization use for each patient will be abstracted by electronic medical record chart review for each patient at 12 months after enrollment.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Usual Care Control Group
n=80 Participants
The control group arm participants receive usual care.
Lay Health Worker Intervention Group
n=80 Participants
Patients randomized into the intervention are assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention, and also receive usual care.
Hospitalization Visits (Chart Review)
50 Hospital Visits
33 Hospital Visits

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: last 30 days of life

Population: sample of 21 participants in the control group and 23 participants in the intervention group who died within 12 months of study enrollment

Hospitalization use will be abstracted by electronic medical record chart review for each patient who is deceased within12 months of enrollment, looking at their hospital visits during the last 30 days of life.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Usual Care Control Group
n=21 Participants
The control group arm participants receive usual care.
Lay Health Worker Intervention Group
n=23 Participants
Patients randomized into the intervention are assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention, and also receive usual care.
Hospitalization Visits (Chart Review)
3 Hospital Visits
6 Hospital Visits

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: 4 months after patient enrollment

Advance Directive documentation for each patient will be abstracted by electronic medical record chart review for each patient at 4 months after enrollment.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Usual Care Control Group
n=80 Participants
The control group arm participants receive usual care.
Lay Health Worker Intervention Group
n=80 Participants
Patients randomized into the intervention are assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention, and also receive usual care.
Advance Directive Documentation (Chart Review)
Baseline
1 Participants
0 Participants
Advance Directive Documentation (Chart Review)
4 Months
15 Participants
46 Participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: 12 months after patient enrollment

Advance Directive documentation for each patient will be abstracted by electronic medical record chart review for each patient at 12 months after enrollment.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Usual Care Control Group
n=80 Participants
The control group arm participants receive usual care.
Lay Health Worker Intervention Group
n=80 Participants
Patients randomized into the intervention are assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention, and also receive usual care.
Advance Directive Documentation (Chart Review)
55 Participants
72 Participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: 4 months after patient enrollment

Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST) documentation for each patient will be abstracted by electronic medical record chart review for each patient at 4 months after enrollment.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Usual Care Control Group
n=80 Participants
The control group arm participants receive usual care.
Lay Health Worker Intervention Group
n=80 Participants
Patients randomized into the intervention are assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention, and also receive usual care.
Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (Chart Review)
5 Participants
25 Participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: 12 months after patient enrollment

Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST) documentation for each patient will be abstracted by electronic medical record chart review for each patient at 12 months after enrollment.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Usual Care Control Group
n=80 Participants
The control group arm participants receive usual care.
Lay Health Worker Intervention Group
n=80 Participants
Patients randomized into the intervention are assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention, and also receive usual care.
Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (Chart Review)
13 Participants
33 Participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: 4 months after patient enrollment

Goals of Care documentation for each patient will be abstracted by electronic medical record chart review for each patient at 4 months after enrollment.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Usual Care Control Group
n=80 Participants
The control group arm participants receive usual care.
Lay Health Worker Intervention Group
n=80 Participants
Patients randomized into the intervention are assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention, and also receive usual care.
Goals of Care Documentation (Chart Review)
10 Participants
44 Participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: 12 months after patient enrollment

Goals of Care documentation for each patient will be abstracted by electronic medical record chart review for each patient at 12 months after enrollment.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Usual Care Control Group
n=80 Participants
The control group arm participants receive usual care.
Lay Health Worker Intervention Group
n=80 Participants
Patients randomized into the intervention are assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention, and also receive usual care.
Goals of Care Documentation (Chart Review)
23 Participants
71 Participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: 12 months after patient enrollment

Total Costs of Care will be evaluated by review of claims data from time of enrollment until 12 months post-enrollment

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Usual Care Control Group
n=80 Participants
The control group arm participants receive usual care.
Lay Health Worker Intervention Group
n=80 Participants
Patients randomized into the intervention are assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention, and also receive usual care.
Total Costs of Care
153,980.60 US Dollars
72,585.06 US Dollars

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Last 30 days of life up to 12 months from patient enrollment

Population: sample of 21 participants in the control group and 23 participants in the intervention group who died within 12 months of study enrollment.

Total Costs of Care during the last 30 days of life will be evaluated by review of claims data from the 30 days preceding death for those patients who become deceased within 12 months of study enrollment.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Usual Care Control Group
n=21 Participants
The control group arm participants receive usual care.
Lay Health Worker Intervention Group
n=23 Participants
Patients randomized into the intervention are assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention, and also receive usual care.
Total Costs of Care End of Life
6,211 US Dollars
5,471 US Dollars

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: 4 months after patient enrollment

Palliative Care Use for each patient will be abstracted by electronic medical record chart review for each patient at 4 months after enrollment.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Usual Care Control Group
n=80 Participants
The control group arm participants receive usual care.
Lay Health Worker Intervention Group
n=80 Participants
Patients randomized into the intervention are assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention, and also receive usual care.
Palliative Care Use (Chart Review)
5 Participants
25 Participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: 12 months after patient enrollment

Palliative Care Use for each patient will be abstracted by electronic medical record chart review for each patient at 12 months after enrollment.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Usual Care Control Group
n=80 Participants
The control group arm participants receive usual care.
Lay Health Worker Intervention Group
n=80 Participants
Patients randomized into the intervention are assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention, and also receive usual care.
Palliative Care Use (Chart Review)
13 Participants
33 Participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: last 30 days of life

Population: sample of 21 participants in the control group and 23 participants in the intervention group who died within 12 months of study enrollment.

Palliative Care Use will be abstracted by electronic medical record chart review for each patient who is deceased within12 months of enrollment, looking at their palliative care usage during the last 30 days of life.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Usual Care Control Group
n=21 Participants
The control group arm participants receive usual care.
Lay Health Worker Intervention Group
n=23 Participants
Patients randomized into the intervention are assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention, and also receive usual care.
Palliative Care Use (Chart Review)
6 Participants
16 Participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: 4 months after patient enrollment

Hospice Use for each patient will be abstracted by electronic medical record chart review for each patient at 4 months after enrollment.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Usual Care Control Group
n=80 Participants
The control group arm participants receive usual care.
Lay Health Worker Intervention Group
n=80 Participants
Patients randomized into the intervention are assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention, and also receive usual care.
Hospice Use (Chart Review)
2 Participants
8 Participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: 12 months after patient enrollment

Hospice Use for each patient will be abstracted by electronic medical record chart review for each patient at 12 months after enrollment.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Usual Care Control Group
n=80 Participants
The control group arm participants receive usual care.
Lay Health Worker Intervention Group
n=80 Participants
Patients randomized into the intervention are assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention, and also receive usual care.
Hospice Use (Chart Review)
6 Participants
16 Participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: last 30 days of life

Population: sample of 21 participants in the control group and 23 participants in the intervention group who died within 12 months of study enrollment

Hospice Use will be abstracted by electronic medical record chart review for each patient who is deceased within12 months of enrollment, looking at their hospice use during the last 30 days of life.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Usual Care Control Group
n=21 Participants
The control group arm participants receive usual care.
Lay Health Worker Intervention Group
n=23 Participants
Patients randomized into the intervention are assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention, and also receive usual care.
Hospice Use (Chart Review)
6 Participants
16 Participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: 4 months after patient enrollment

Survival rate for patients will be abstracted by electronic medical record chart review at 4 months after enrollment.

Outcome measures

Outcome data not reported

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: 12 months after patient enrollment

Survival rate for patients will be abstracted by electronic medical record chart review at 12 months after enrollment.

Outcome measures

Outcome data not reported

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Proportion of patients who strongly agreed the decisions about their health care were theirs to make at baseline (study enrollment).

Population: 79 (98.8%) participants in the control group and 80 (100%) participants in the intervention group completed this survey at time of enrollment in the study (baseline).

The validated Satisfaction with Decision (SWD) Survey was administered to all participants at baseline. The SWD is a 6-item questionnaire, where respondents rate their agreement with 6 statements (e.g. "I am satisfied that I am adequately informed about the issues important to my decision") on a likert-type scale. Answer options were (1) Strongly Disagree; (2) Disagree; (3) Neither Agree nor Disagree; (4) Agree; (5) Strongly Agree. Responses to each item were averaged to give a score of 0 to 5 where 0 indicated lowest satisfaction and 5 indicated most satisfied with decision making. Results are expressed as a proportion of participants who responded "strongly agree" at Baseline on the Satisfaction with Decision scale, which measured ratings of decision-making.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Usual Care Control Group
n=79 Participants
The control group arm participants receive usual care.
Lay Health Worker Intervention Group
n=80 Participants
Patients randomized into the intervention are assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention, and also receive usual care.
Patient Satisfaction With Decision-Making Using the Satisfaction With Decision Survey
41 Participants
38 Participants

Adverse Events

Usual Care Control Group

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 21 deaths

Lay Health Worker Intervention Group

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 23 deaths

Serious adverse events

Adverse event data not reported

Other adverse events

Adverse event data not reported

Additional Information

Dr. Manali Patel

Stanford University

Phone: 6504859462

Results disclosure agreements

  • Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
  • Publication restrictions are in place