Head and Neck NeoplasmCARINGNCT04267627
Telemedicine Nurse-Led Intervention for Rural Cancer Survivors
A study testing Comprehensive Assistance: Rural Interventions, Nursing, and Guidance (CARING) in people with Head and Neck Neoplasm and Survivorship, run by University of Virginia.
Trial summary
This study will evaluate the impact, cost-effectiveness, and patient perspectives of Comprehensive Assistance: Rural Intervention, Nursing, and Guidance (CARING), a nurse-led supportive care protocol delivered using telemedicine videoconferencing aimed at reducing unmet needs in a rural head and neck cancer… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Head and Neck Neoplasm, Survivorship
- What is being tested?
- Comprehensive Assistance: Rural Interventions, Nursing, and Guidance (CARING)
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 450 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 31 Dec 2020to 1 Jan 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Diagnosis of Head and Neck Cancer
- Anticipated to be within 3 months of end of treatment
- At least 18 years old
Who cannot join
- -
Trial locations and contacts
No sites are listed yet.
About this study
Official title: A Nurse-Led Telemedicine Videoconferencing Intervention to Improve Access to Supportive Cancer Survivorship Care for Rural Virginians
This study will evaluate the impact, cost-effectiveness, and patient perspectives of Comprehensive Assistance: Rural Intervention, Nursing, and Guidance (CARING), a nurse-led supportive care protocol delivered using telemedicine videoconferencing aimed at reducing unmet needs in a rural head and neck cancer population. Specific aims: 1) Test the efficacy of CARING, delivered with and without telemedicine, compared to a control group. 2) Conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of a nurse-led telemedicine visit. 3) Evaluate patient perceptions of a telemedicine intervention. Design: We will use a three-arm randomized control design to determine the efficacy of CARING delivered face-to-face, vs. CARING over telemedicine, vs. usual care. Costs will be determine for incremental cost effectiveness analysis, with quality of life years as the effectiveness variable. Patient perceptions will be evaluated qualitatively using the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM), designed to evaluate translation of research into practice and quantitatively using the Telemedicine Satisfaction and Usefulness Questionnaire (TSUQ). Sample: We will enroll 450 head and neck cancer survivors of any stage who have completed treatment within the last 6 weeks (address over sampling of rural). Procedures: Following randomization, those in the intervention arm will either receive the nurse-led intervention in a clinic setting or over telemedicine videoconferencing 6 weeks following their in-person, end of treatment medical visit. Assessments at baseline, 6 weeks following the intervention, and 6 months following the intervention will document unmet needs using the Short Form Survivorship Unmet Needs (SF-SUNS) and quality of life using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapies- Head and Neck (FACT-HN) and the TSUQ and PRISM-guided questionnaires immediately following intervention. Health utilization costs at the societal and health system levels will be collected from the electronic medical record and patient interviews.
Read the detailed description
Once cancer treatment has concluded (a phase called "extended survivorship") some cancer survivors continue to experience physical and psychosocial morbidities, and short-term and late effects of treatment, all of which can impact survivors' mental health, quality of life, and occupational and social functioning. Continued deficits in post-treatment health and function are termed survivorship unmet needs. Survivors of head and neck cancer (HNC; defined as cancer of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, sinuses, nasal cavity, and salivary glands) suffer numerous and often life-altering unmet needs including lingering pain, altered speech and eating, and facial disfigurement. Few interventions exist to connect HNC survivors with resources to address physical and psychosocial sequelae, and accordingly HNC survivors have high unmet needs. Rural survivors are even less likely to have their post-treatment needs met. The University of Virginia (UVa) Emily Couric Clinical Cancer Center (EC4) serves a largely rural catchment area where patients travel up to 6 hours to receive treatment. The EC4 offer a range of supportive care resources to assist HNC survivors during treatment, but once treatment is over, rural survivors are less likely to know of, let alone make use of these resources. Using resources of the well-established UVa Center for Telehealth (CFT) our intervention connects rural survivors with a nurse-led supportive care visit using telemedicine videoconferencing.
Preliminary data from Comprehensive Assistance: Rural Intervention, Nursing, and Guidance (CARING), a nurse-led, protocol-driven visit delivered over telemedicine videoconferencing suggests that supplementing medical follow-up with a face-to-face nursing visit over telemedicine works to overcome access barriers for rural survivors, and may reduce unmet needs, all without the need for the patient to travel to the EC4. Importantly, because of the extensive network and capabilities of the CFT we are able to offer the intervention either in patient's own home or through one of UVa's active telemedicine sites throughout the state. During the pilot intervention 35% (7/20) of participants were successfully referred to and connected with a supportive care provider. Pilot data suggests that a nurse-led proactive unmet needs intervention may overcome the stigma associated with asking for or accepting psychosocial help among rural residents, which can further complicate the provision of supportive care to this population.
Identifying the optimal approach to address rural survivors' unmet needs, we next need to determine if the nurse protocol or the telemedicine modality (or both) are driving intervention success. Health systems and policy makers considering adopting this model of care need understand to incremental costs and cost-effectiveness of providing a nurse-led protocol delivered via telemedicine. Rural and older populations may experience more difficulties adopting health technology; thus we need to determine patients' perspectives on the use and usefulness of the intervention.
Aim 1. Test the efficacy of CARING, delivered with and without telemedicine, compared to a control group. Hypothesis 1: HNC survivors who receive the CARING intervention will have a significantly larger reduction in unmet needs. Preliminary data revealed that HNC survivors of later cancer stage, longer distance to care, and receiving a home intervention, were more likely to accept a referral to address their unmet needs. We will determine the impact of those factors, as well as rurality, home broadband access, SES, race, ethnicity, and sex, on reduction in survivorship unmet needs. Hypothesis 2: Rural HNC survivors will be more likely to attend a home-based telemedicine intervention than an in-person visit. We will compare attendance rates of rural HNC survivors between those who receive a telemedicine home-based intervention and an in-person visit.
Aim 2. Conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of a nurse-led telemedicine visit. We will calculate the ratio of incremental costs of delivering the intervention compared to the improvement in quality of life. Compare the relative costs of survivorship care delivered 1) with or without the CARING telemedicine intervention and 2) with or without the CARING intervention (without telemedicine) from both societal and health system perspectives. Analyze cost-effectiveness models for early and late stage cancers, and rural/non-rural survivors.
Aim 3. Evaluate patient perceptions of a telemedicine intervention. Hypothesis 3: Participants will report both the nurse interaction and minimizing travel as benefits of the intervention and technology use a barrier. Survey participants to determine intervention patient-centeredness, barriers, seamlessness of transition between program elements, access, and burden of participation in the intervention.
- Conditions
- Head and Neck Neoplasm, Survivorship
- Being tested
- Comprehensive Assistance: Rural Interventions, Nursing, and Guidance (CARING)
- Keywords
- Telemedicine, Cancer Survivorship, Rural Health Disparities
- Medical subject headings
- Head and Neck Neoplasms
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Comprehensive Assistance: Rural Interventions, Nursing, and Guidance (CARING)Behavioural
Cancer-related distress will be assessed using the NCCN Distress Thermometer amended to include HNC-specific areas of distress. For those participants experiencing high rates of distress, the nurse will provide targeted distress education. Education for participants exhibiting successful distress self-management, or with distress that has already resolved will focus on reinforcing surveillance and health promotion information contained in the Survivorship Care Plan. When indicated, the nurse will discuss potential referrals to support services with the patient, and they will decide jointly which referrals will be beneficial. Following the visits, the nurse will make agreed upon referrals using existing cancer center pathways, documenting these in the medical record. The nurse will follow-up with the patient via telephone 6 weeks following the telemedicine visit to determine uptake of the referral, documenting all referral information in the electronic medical record.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Usual Care | No intervention | No intervention. |
| CARING with telemedicine | Experimental | Patients will receive the nurse-led supportive care intervention over telemedicine videoconferencing from home or from a satellite telemedicine site in Virginia. Receives: Behavioral: Comprehensive Assistance: Rural Interventions, Nursing, and Guidance (CARING) |
| CARING face-to-face | Experimental | Patients will receive the nurse-led supportive care intervention in person. Receives: Behavioral: Comprehensive Assistance: Rural Interventions, Nursing, and Guidance (CARING) |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Number and type of Unmet Needs
Survivorship Unmet Needs Survey- Short Form. 30 question scale with 0-4 rating for each item. Overall scores range 0-120. Lower scores indicated fewer unmet needs.
Measured: baseline
Number and type of Unmet Needs
Survivorship Unmet Needs Survey- Short Form. 30 question scale with 0-4 rating for each item. Overall scores range 0-120. Lower scores indicated fewer unmet needs.
Measured: 6 weeks post intervention
Number and type of Unmet Needs
Survivorship Unmet Needs Survey- Short Form. 30 question scale with 0-4 rating for each item. Overall scores range 0-120. Lower scores indicated fewer unmet needs.
Measured: 6 monthspost intervention
Quality of Life rating
Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapies- Head and Neck (FACT-HN). Quality of life scale with 4 sub-scales and 12 items each related specifically to head and neck cancer quality of life. The Physical Health scale has 7 items, each rated 0-4. Scores range from 0-28 with a lower score indicating better quality of life. The Social Well Being scale has 7 items, each rated 0-4. Scores range from 0-28 with a higher score indicating better quality of life. The Emotional Well Being scale has 6 items, each rated 0-4. Scores range from 0-24 with a lower score indicating better quality of life. The Functional scale has 7 items, each rated 0-4. Scores range from 0-28 with a higher score indicating better quality of life. The remaining 12 items are all scored as 0-4 each, range for each item 0-4 with higher or lower score indicating better quality life depending on each individual item.
Measured: baseline
Quality of Life rating
Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapies- Head and Neck (FACT-HN). Quality of life scale with 4 sub-scales and 12 items each related specifically to head and neck cancer quality of life. The Physical Health scale has 7 items, each rated 0-4. Scores range from 0-28 with a lower score indicating better quality of life. The Social Well Being scale has 7 items, each rated 0-4. Scores range from 0-28 with a higher score indicating better quality of life. The Emotional Well Being scale has 6 items, each rated 0-4. Scores range from 0-24 with a lower score indicating better quality of life. The Functional scale has 7 items, each rated 0-4. Scores range from 0-28 with a higher score indicating better quality of life. The remaining 12 items are all scored as 0-4 each, range for each item 0-4 with higher or lower score indicating better quality life depending on each individual item.
Measured: 6 weeks post intervention
Quality of Life rating
Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapies- Head and Neck (FACT-HN). Quality of life scale with 4 sub-scales and 12 items each related specifically to head and neck cancer quality of life. The Physical Health scale has 7 items, each rated 0-4. Scores range from 0-28 with a lower score indicating better quality of life. The Social Well Being scale has 7 items, each rated 0-4. Scores range from 0-28 with a higher score indicating better quality of life. The Emotional Well Being scale has 6 items, each rated 0-4. Scores range from 0-24 with a lower score indicating better quality of life. The Functional scale has 7 items, each rated 0-4. Scores range from 0-28 with a higher score indicating better quality of life. The remaining 12 items are all scored as 0-4 each, range for each item 0-4 with higher or lower score indicating better quality life depending on each individual item.
Measured: 6 months post intervention
Secondary outcomes (1)
telemedicine usefulness and satisfaction
Telemedicine Satisfaction and Usefulness Questionnaire (TSUQ). The TSUQ has 2 domains and a total of 21 items, the Video Visits domain (11 items) and the Use and Impact domain (10 items) each measured on a scale 1-5. The range of scores for Video Visits domain is 11-55 with a higher score indicating more satisfaction with video visits, and the Use and for the Use and Impact domain is 10-50, with higher scores indicating more usefulness to impact health outcomes.
Measured: within one week of intervention
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted13 Feb 2020
- Study start31 Dec 2020 (estimated)
- Primary completion1 Jan 2025 (estimated)
- Study completion1 Jan 2026 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Head and Neck NeoplasmStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of VirginiaThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Three-arm trial evaluating CARING delivered over telemedicine vs. CARING delivered face-to-face vs. usual care
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 450 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Virginia
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Arizona
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Pamela DeGuzman, University of Virginia
- Investigators
- Pamela B DeGuzman, PhD, Principal investigator, University of Virginia
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04267627
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 20991
- Acronym
- CARING
- Status last verified
- Feb 2020
- First submitted
- 5 Feb 2020
- Last updated
- 17 Feb 2020
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 17 Feb 2020. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Nurse-Led Telemedicine Videoconferencing Intervention to Improve Access to Supportive Cancer Survivorship Care for Rural Virginians
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04267627
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CARING / 20991
- Conditions
- Head and Neck Neoplasm, Survivorship
- Keywords
- Telemedicine, Cancer Survivorship, Rural Health Disparities
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 450 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- University of VirginiaUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Arizona
- Study start
- 31 Dec 2020 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 1 Jan 2025 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 1 Jan 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 13 Feb 2020 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This study will evaluate the impact, cost-effectiveness, and patient perspectives of Comprehensive Assistance: Rural Intervention, Nursing, and Guidance (CARING), a nurse-led supportive care protocol delivered using telemedicine videoconferencing aimed at reducing unmet needs in a rural head and neck cancer population. Specific aims: 1) Test the efficacy of CARING, delivered with and without telemedicine, compared to a control group. 2) Conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of a nurse-led telemedicine visit. 3) Evaluate patient perceptions of a telemedicine intervention. Design: We will use a three-arm randomized control design to determine the efficacy of CARING delivered face-to-face, vs. CARING over telemedicine, vs. usual care. Costs will be determine for incremental cost effectiveness analysis, with quality of life years as the effectiveness variable. Patient perceptions will be evaluated qualitatively using the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM), designed to evaluate translation of research into practice and quantitatively using the Telemedicine Satisfaction and Usefulness Questionnaire (TSUQ). Sample: We will enroll 450 head and neck cancer survivors of any stage who have completed treatment within the last 6 weeks (address over sampling of rural). Procedures: Following randomization, those in the intervention arm will either receive the nurse-led intervention in a clinic setting or over telemedicine videoconferencing 6 weeks following their in-person, end of treatment medical visit. Assessments at baseline, 6 weeks following the intervention, and 6 months following the intervention will document unmet needs using the Short Form Survivorship Unmet Needs (SF-SUNS) and quality of life using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapies- Head and Neck (FACT-HN) and the TSUQ and PRISM-guided questionnaires immediately following intervention. Health utilization costs at the societal and health system levels will be collected from the electronic medical record and patient interviews.
Detailed description
Once cancer treatment has concluded (a phase called "extended survivorship") some cancer survivors continue to experience physical and psychosocial morbidities, and short-term and late effects of treatment, all of which can impact survivors' mental health, quality of life, and occupational and social functioning. Continued deficits in post-treatment health and function are termed survivorship unmet needs. Survivors of head and neck cancer (HNC; defined as cancer of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, sinuses, nasal cavity, and salivary glands) suffer numerous and often life-altering unmet needs including lingering pain, altered speech and eating, and facial disfigurement. Few interventions exist to connect HNC survivors with resources to address physical and psychosocial sequelae, and accordingly HNC survivors have high unmet needs. Rural survivors are even less likely to have their post-treatment needs met. The University of Virginia (UVa) Emily Couric Clinical Cancer Center (EC4) serves a largely rural catchment area where patients travel up to 6 hours to receive treatment. The EC4 offer a range of supportive care resources to assist HNC survivors during treatment, but once treatment is over, rural survivors are less likely to know of, let alone make use of these resources. Using resources of the well-established UVa Center for Telehealth (CFT) our intervention connects rural survivors with a nurse-led supportive care visit using telemedicine videoconferencing.
Preliminary data from Comprehensive Assistance: Rural Intervention, Nursing, and Guidance (CARING), a nurse-led, protocol-driven visit delivered over telemedicine videoconferencing suggests that supplementing medical follow-up with a face-to-face nursing visit over telemedicine works to overcome access barriers for rural survivors, and may reduce unmet needs, all without the need for the patient to travel to the EC4. Importantly, because of the extensive network and capabilities of the CFT we are able to offer the intervention either in patient's own home or through one of UVa's active telemedicine sites throughout the state. During the pilot intervention 35% (7/20) of participants were successfully referred to and connected with a supportive care provider. Pilot data suggests that a nurse-led proactive unmet needs intervention may overcome the stigma associated with asking for or accepting psychosocial help among rural residents, which can further complicate the provision of supportive care to this population.
Identifying the optimal approach to address rural survivors' unmet needs, we next need to determine if the nurse protocol or the telemedicine modality (or both) are driving intervention success. Health systems and policy makers considering adopting this model of care need understand to incremental costs and cost-effectiveness of providing a nurse-led protocol delivered via telemedicine. Rural and older populations may experience more difficulties adopting health technology; thus we need to determine patients' perspectives on the use and usefulness of the intervention.
Aim 1. Test the efficacy of CARING, delivered with and without telemedicine, compared to a control group. Hypothesis 1: HNC survivors who receive the CARING intervention will have a significantly larger reduction in unmet needs. Preliminary data revealed that HNC survivors of later cancer stage, longer distance to care, and receiving a home intervention, were more likely to accept a referral to address their unmet needs. We will determine the impact of those factors, as well as rurality, home broadband access, SES, race, ethnicity, and sex, on reduction in survivorship unmet needs. Hypothesis 2: Rural HNC survivors will be more likely to attend a home-based telemedicine intervention than an in-person visit. We will compare attendance rates of rural HNC survivors between those who receive a telemedicine home-based intervention and an in-person visit.
Aim 2. Conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of a nurse-led telemedicine visit. We will calculate the ratio of incremental costs of delivering the intervention compared to the improvement in quality of life. Compare the relative costs of survivorship care delivered 1) with or without the CARING telemedicine intervention and 2) with or without the CARING intervention (without telemedicine) from both societal and health system perspectives. Analyze cost-effectiveness models for early and late stage cancers, and rural/non-rural survivors.
Aim 3. Evaluate patient perceptions of a telemedicine intervention. Hypothesis 3: Participants will report both the nurse interaction and minimizing travel as benefits of the intervention and technology use a barrier. Survey participants to determine intervention patient-centeredness, barriers, seamlessness of transition between program elements, access, and burden of participation in the intervention.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 3
- Model description
- Three-arm trial evaluating CARING delivered over telemedicine vs. CARING delivered face-to-face vs. usual care
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Usual Care | No intervention | –No intervention. |
| CARING with telemedicine | Experimental | Behavioral: Comprehensive Assistance: Rural Interventions, Nursing, and Guidance (CARING)Patients will receive the nurse-led supportive care intervention over telemedicine videoconferencing from home or from a satellite telemedicine site in Virginia. |
| CARING face-to-face | Experimental | Behavioral: Comprehensive Assistance: Rural Interventions, Nursing, and Guidance (CARING)Patients will receive the nurse-led supportive care intervention in person. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Diagnosis of Head and Neck Cancer
- Anticipated to be within 3 months of end of treatment
- At least 18 years old
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- -
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Comprehensive Assistance: Rural Interventions, Nursing, and Guidance (CARING)Cancer-related distress will be assessed using the NCCN Distress Thermometer amended to include HNC-specific areas of distress. For those participants experiencing high rates of distress, the nurse will provide targeted distress education. Education for participants exhibiting successful distress self-management, or with distress that has already resolved will focus on reinforcing surveillance and health promotion information contained in the Survivorship Care Plan. When indicated, the nurse will discuss potential referrals to support services with the patient, and they will decide jointly which referrals will be beneficial. Following the visits, the nurse will make agreed upon referrals using existing cancer center pathways, documenting these in the medical record. The nurse will follow-up with the patient via telephone 6 weeks following the telemedicine visit to determine uptake of the referral, documenting all referral information in the electronic medical record. | Behavioural | CARING face-to-face, CARING with telemedicine |
Primary outcome
Number and type of Unmet Needs
Time frame: baseline
Survivorship Unmet Needs Survey- Short Form. 30 question scale with 0-4 rating for each item. Overall scores range 0-120. Lower scores indicated fewer unmet needs.
Number and type of Unmet Needs
Time frame: 6 weeks post intervention
Survivorship Unmet Needs Survey- Short Form. 30 question scale with 0-4 rating for each item. Overall scores range 0-120. Lower scores indicated fewer unmet needs.
Number and type of Unmet Needs
Time frame: 6 monthspost intervention
Survivorship Unmet Needs Survey- Short Form. 30 question scale with 0-4 rating for each item. Overall scores range 0-120. Lower scores indicated fewer unmet needs.
Quality of Life rating
Time frame: baseline
Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapies- Head and Neck (FACT-HN). Quality of life scale with 4 sub-scales and 12 items each related specifically to head and neck cancer quality of life. The Physical Health scale has 7 items, each rated 0-4. Scores range from 0-28 with a lower score indicating better quality of life. The Social Well Being scale has 7 items, each rated 0-4. Scores range from 0-28 with a higher score indicating better quality of life. The Emotional Well Being scale has 6 items, each rated 0-4. Scores range from 0-24 with a lower score indicating better quality of life. The Functional scale has 7 items, each rated 0-4. Scores range from 0-28 with a higher score indicating better quality of life. The remaining 12 items are all scored as 0-4 each, range for each item 0-4 with higher or lower score indicating better quality life depending on each individual item.
Quality of Life rating
Time frame: 6 weeks post intervention
Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapies- Head and Neck (FACT-HN). Quality of life scale with 4 sub-scales and 12 items each related specifically to head and neck cancer quality of life. The Physical Health scale has 7 items, each rated 0-4. Scores range from 0-28 with a lower score indicating better quality of life. The Social Well Being scale has 7 items, each rated 0-4. Scores range from 0-28 with a higher score indicating better quality of life. The Emotional Well Being scale has 6 items, each rated 0-4. Scores range from 0-24 with a lower score indicating better quality of life. The Functional scale has 7 items, each rated 0-4. Scores range from 0-28 with a higher score indicating better quality of life. The remaining 12 items are all scored as 0-4 each, range for each item 0-4 with higher or lower score indicating better quality life depending on each individual item.
Quality of Life rating
Time frame: 6 months post intervention
Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapies- Head and Neck (FACT-HN). Quality of life scale with 4 sub-scales and 12 items each related specifically to head and neck cancer quality of life. The Physical Health scale has 7 items, each rated 0-4. Scores range from 0-28 with a lower score indicating better quality of life. The Social Well Being scale has 7 items, each rated 0-4. Scores range from 0-28 with a higher score indicating better quality of life. The Emotional Well Being scale has 6 items, each rated 0-4. Scores range from 0-24 with a lower score indicating better quality of life. The Functional scale has 7 items, each rated 0-4. Scores range from 0-28 with a higher score indicating better quality of life. The remaining 12 items are all scored as 0-4 each, range for each item 0-4 with higher or lower score indicating better quality life depending on each individual item.
1 secondary outcome
telemedicine usefulness and satisfaction
Time frame: within one week of intervention
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 17 Feb 2020.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Head and Neck Neoplasm
RecruitingPhase 1/2
Study of INBRX-106 and INBRX-106 in Combination With Pembrolizumab (Keytruda®) in Subjects With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Solid Tumors (Hexavalent OX40 Agonist)
Solid Tumor, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
RecruitingObservational study
Proton Re-irradiation in Patients With Recurrent or Second Primary Head and Neck Cancer , a Multicentre Phase II Single Arm Trial
Head & Neck Cancer
RecruitingPhase 2/3
Multicenter Validation Trial of [18F]AlF-FAPI-74 for PET Imaging of Cancer-associated Fibroblasts Through Fibroblast Activation Protein Inhibitors (FAPI) in Different Tumor Types
Oesophageal Cancer, Gastric Cancer
RecruitingPhase 2
Proton Spatially Fractionated Radiotherapy or Photon Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in Combination With Pembrolizumab Before Surgery for the Treatment of Locally Advanced and Radiation-Naive Locoregionally Recurrent Oral Cavity Cancer, OSPRI Trial
Locally Advanced Oral Cavity Squamous Cell Carcinoma, Locally Recurrent Oral Cavity Squamous Cell Carcinoma
RecruitingPhase 4
Lidocaine Infiltration and Neuroimmunomodulation in Head and Neck Cancer Surgery
Head and Neck Cancer (H&N)
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Pamela B DeGuzman, PhD principal investigator
University of Virginia
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Comprehensive Assistance: Rural Interventions, Nursing, and Guidance (CARING) in people with Head and Neck Neoplasm and Survivorship, run by University of Virginia.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 17 Feb 2020. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Pamela DeGuzman, PhD (4344668327, pambakerdeguzman@gmail.com), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Number and type of Unmet Needs (time frame: baseline). The study lists 6 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 17 Feb 2020.