Surrogate Decision-makingNCT04599166
Choosing an Effective Healthcare Spokesperson: An Interactive Intervention
A study testing Who Would You Choose: Serious Fun in people with Surrogate Decision-making and Healthcare Spokesperson, run by Milton S. Hershey Medical Center at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The investigators developed a "serious game" intervention called "Who Would You Choose: Serious Fun" (WWYC) to help people consider the key qualities healthcare spokespersons should have. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Surrogate Decision-making, Healthcare Spokesperson, Advance Care Planning
- What is being tested?
- Who Would You Choose: Serious Fun
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 207 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 3 Aug 2021to 7 Dec 2022
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
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
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Able to read and write in English
- 18 years or older
- Have a working smart phone
Who cannot join
- NOT able to read and write in English
- Younger than 18 years old
- Does NOT have a working smart phone
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
Penn State College of Medicine
Hershey, Pennsylvania, 17033
About this study
The investigators developed a "serious game" intervention called "Who Would You Choose: Serious Fun" (WWYC) to help people consider the key qualities healthcare spokespersons should have. The intervention uses a spinner, cards, and dice, along with a smart-phone App to prompt players (using scenarios and metaphors) to choose a spokesperson whose qualities are best suited to the role. Friendly competition is encouraged by having players receive points for correct answers, and additional points for good explanations of their choices. At the end of the game, players identify a real-life spokesperson based on the qualities considered during game-play. Then, using an associated smart-phone App, the intervention will help spark communication between the player and their chosen spokesperson.
Read the detailed description
Advance care planning (ACP) is the process of thinking through and articulating in advance one's preferences for future medical care. It has long been promoted as a way for people to receive medical treatment consistent with their values, goals, and preferences. While ACP typically involves decision-making about specific life-sustaining treatments, choosing who will make medical decisions when the patient cannot is considered by many to be the single most important ACP action a person can take. When patients fail to designate a healthcare spokesperson (henceforth spokesperson), it leads to uncertainty about who will make medical decisions, what treatments are to be accepted or declined, and on what basis-which can lead to familial conflict, unwanted and costly medical care, and avoidable patient suffering. So, too, when patients choose the "wrong" person to represent them, the patient's wishes are less likely to be known or respected. The investigation team's own research suggests that when patients prefer fewer aggressive medical treatments, there is significantly lower concordance between spokespersons' decisions and patients' wishes.
Patients, families, and ACP experts have identified several qualities as being especially important for spokespersons to have. Ideally, spokespersons should know the patient's values, be available when needed, be trustworthy and caring, have good judgment, and be able to stand up under pressure. That said, many individuals (and state laws) assign spokespersons on the basis of relationship (spouse, parent, etc.) rather than personal qualities. Surprisingly, no interventions (to the team's knowledge) are explicitly designed to help people consider the actual qualities of the person chosen as spokesperson, much less engage this individual to confirm that this person can fully represent the patient's wishes should the need arise.
To address these gaps, the investigative team has developed a novel intervention that includes a "serious game" to help people consider the qualities desired in a spokesperson, then engage the person they choose for this role. Combining a serious topic with an enjoyable activity ("gamification") has been effective at changing health-related behaviors in multiple settings with the target population ("sandwich generation" and older adults). The game element of the intervention, "Who Would You Choose: Serious Fun" (WWYC), prompts players (using scenarios and metaphors) to choose a spokesperson whose qualities are best suited to the role. At the end of the game, players identify a real-life spokesperson based on the qualities considered during gameplay. Then, using an online interface, WWYC will spark communication between the player and their chosen spokesperson.
The long-term goal of this project is to help people make more thoughtful and informed choices when selecting a spokesperson, and to help these spokespersons be better prepared for the role of surrogate decision-maker. The current mixed methods study proposed here is designed to learn whether and how WWYC helps individuals select an appropriate spokesperson for healthcare decisions, as assessed via three specific aims:
Aim 1. To explore how playing the novel game Who Would You Choose affects people's choice of a spokesperson. Using qualitative methods including focus groups and one-on-one interviews, the investigative team will explore how WWYC affects individual players' thought process for choosing a spokesperson, and whether the player's choice changes as a result of game-play.
Aim 2. To establish that WWYC is a feasible way to help individuals choose and engage a spokesperson. The investigative team will judge it feasible if: 1) 100 individuals are recruited to play the game; 2) >75% of game players report that playing the game is helpful for choosing a spokesperson; 3) >75% of game players endorse the game; 4) >75% of spokespersons engage with WWYC (using its online interface) following player request.
Aim 3. To integrate qualitative and quantitative data to explain how the experience of playing the game relates to their spokesperson's willingness to engage. The investigative team hypothesizes that a positive player experience with WWYC will be associated with successful engagement with their spokesperson.
- Being tested
- Who Would You Choose: Serious Fun
- Keywords
- Surrogate decision-making, Healthcare spokesperson, Advance care planning, Feasibility
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Who Would You Choose: Serious FunBehavioural
"Who Would You Choose: Serious Fun" is a conversation activity that prompts players (using scenarios and metaphors) to choose a spokesperson whose qualities are best suited to the role. At the end of the activity, players identify a real-life spokesperson based on the qualities considered during gameplay.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Participant arm | Experimental | Participants will be recruited to complete the WWYC intervention. Receives: Behavioral: Who Would You Choose: Serious Fun |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Number of Participants Who Changed Their Choice of Spokesperson
This measure involved a verbal response (during a follow-up telephone interview) to the question as to whether they have changed their choice for who should be their healthcare spokesperson in the event that someone else needed to make medical decisions for them.
Measured: 4 weeks
Secondary outcomes (3)
Participation Rate
Participation rate was defined as the number of participants who completed the study. This number excludes the number of participants who were enrolled but could not complete the intervention due to problems with technology (n=80).
Measured: Aug 2021 - Dec 2022
Spokesperson Response (Percentage)
Percentage of spokespersons who responded to participant request following intervention
Measured: 8 weeks
Endorsement of the WWYC Intervention
>75% of WWYC participants endorse WWYC, as measured by the Net Promoter Score
Measured: 4 weeks
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted22 Oct 2020
- Study start3 Aug 2021
- Primary completion7 Dec 2022
- Study completion7 Dec 2022
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Other trials for Surrogate Decision-makingStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Milton S. Hershey Medical CenterThe 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
- Other
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 207 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR)
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Benjamin H. Levi, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
- Investigators
- Benjamin H Levi, MD PhD, Principal investigator, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04599166
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- IR-16274
- Other IDs
- R21NR019363
- Status last verified
- May 2025
- First submitted
- 6 Oct 2020
- Last updated
- 20 May 2025
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: We will present our findings at conferences and in peer-reviewed publications.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 20 May 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Choosing an Effective Healthcare Spokesperson: An Interactive Intervention
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04599166
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- IR-16274
- Keywords
- Surrogate decision-making, Healthcare spokesperson, Advance care planning, Feasibility
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 207 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Milton S. Hershey Medical CenterUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR)
- Study start
- 3 Aug 2021 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 7 Dec 2022 (actual)
- Study completion
- 7 Dec 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 22 Oct 2020 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 8 Feb 2024
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The investigators developed a "serious game" intervention called "Who Would You Choose: Serious Fun" (WWYC) to help people consider the key qualities healthcare spokespersons should have. The intervention uses a spinner, cards, and dice, along with a smart-phone App to prompt players (using scenarios and metaphors) to choose a spokesperson whose qualities are best suited to the role. Friendly competition is encouraged by having players receive points for correct answers, and additional points for good explanations of their choices. At the end of the game, players identify a real-life spokesperson based on the qualities considered during game-play. Then, using an associated smart-phone App, the intervention will help spark communication between the player and their chosen spokesperson.
Detailed description
Advance care planning (ACP) is the process of thinking through and articulating in advance one's preferences for future medical care. It has long been promoted as a way for people to receive medical treatment consistent with their values, goals, and preferences. While ACP typically involves decision-making about specific life-sustaining treatments, choosing who will make medical decisions when the patient cannot is considered by many to be the single most important ACP action a person can take. When patients fail to designate a healthcare spokesperson (henceforth spokesperson), it leads to uncertainty about who will make medical decisions, what treatments are to be accepted or declined, and on what basis-which can lead to familial conflict, unwanted and costly medical care, and avoidable patient suffering. So, too, when patients choose the "wrong" person to represent them, the patient's wishes are less likely to be known or respected. The investigation team's own research suggests that when patients prefer fewer aggressive medical treatments, there is significantly lower concordance between spokespersons' decisions and patients' wishes.
Patients, families, and ACP experts have identified several qualities as being especially important for spokespersons to have. Ideally, spokespersons should know the patient's values, be available when needed, be trustworthy and caring, have good judgment, and be able to stand up under pressure. That said, many individuals (and state laws) assign spokespersons on the basis of relationship (spouse, parent, etc.) rather than personal qualities. Surprisingly, no interventions (to the team's knowledge) are explicitly designed to help people consider the actual qualities of the person chosen as spokesperson, much less engage this individual to confirm that this person can fully represent the patient's wishes should the need arise.
To address these gaps, the investigative team has developed a novel intervention that includes a "serious game" to help people consider the qualities desired in a spokesperson, then engage the person they choose for this role. Combining a serious topic with an enjoyable activity ("gamification") has been effective at changing health-related behaviors in multiple settings with the target population ("sandwich generation" and older adults). The game element of the intervention, "Who Would You Choose: Serious Fun" (WWYC), prompts players (using scenarios and metaphors) to choose a spokesperson whose qualities are best suited to the role. At the end of the game, players identify a real-life spokesperson based on the qualities considered during gameplay. Then, using an online interface, WWYC will spark communication between the player and their chosen spokesperson.
The long-term goal of this project is to help people make more thoughtful and informed choices when selecting a spokesperson, and to help these spokespersons be better prepared for the role of surrogate decision-maker. The current mixed methods study proposed here is designed to learn whether and how WWYC helps individuals select an appropriate spokesperson for healthcare decisions, as assessed via three specific aims:
Aim 1. To explore how playing the novel game Who Would You Choose affects people's choice of a spokesperson. Using qualitative methods including focus groups and one-on-one interviews, the investigative team will explore how WWYC affects individual players' thought process for choosing a spokesperson, and whether the player's choice changes as a result of game-play.
Aim 2. To establish that WWYC is a feasible way to help individuals choose and engage a spokesperson. The investigative team will judge it feasible if: 1) 100 individuals are recruited to play the game; 2) >75% of game players report that playing the game is helpful for choosing a spokesperson; 3) >75% of game players endorse the game; 4) >75% of spokespersons engage with WWYC (using its online interface) following player request.
Aim 3. To integrate qualitative and quantitative data to explain how the experience of playing the game relates to their spokesperson's willingness to engage. The investigative team hypothesizes that a positive player experience with WWYC will be associated with successful engagement with their spokesperson.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Participant arm | Experimental | Behavioral: Who Would You Choose: Serious FunParticipants will be recruited to complete the WWYC intervention. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Able to read and write in English
- 18 years or older
- Have a working smart phone
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- NOT able to read and write in English
- Younger than 18 years old
- Does NOT have a working smart phone
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Who Would You Choose: Serious Fun"Who Would You Choose: Serious Fun" is a conversation activity that prompts players (using scenarios and metaphors) to choose a spokesperson whose qualities are best suited to the role. At the end of the activity, players identify a real-life spokesperson based on the qualities considered during gameplay. | Behavioural | Participant arm |
Primary outcome
Number of Participants Who Changed Their Choice of Spokesperson
Time frame: 4 weeks
This measure involved a verbal response (during a follow-up telephone interview) to the question as to whether they have changed their choice for who should be their healthcare spokesperson in the event that someone else needed to make medical decisions for them.
3 secondary outcomes
Participation Rate
Time frame: Aug 2021 - Dec 2022
Spokesperson Response (Percentage)
Time frame: 8 weeks
Endorsement of the WWYC Intervention
Time frame: 4 weeks
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 20 May 2025.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. We will present our findings at conferences and in peer-reviewed publications.
Related trials for Surrogate Decision-making
RecruitingObservational study
Survey to Determine Incarcerated Persons' Views on Surrogate Decision Making
Healthy Volunteers
Not yet recruiting
Inpatient Hospice Transitions Checklist
Dementia
Not yet recruiting
A Decision Support Tool for Common Surgical Fixations of Hip Fractures
Hip Fracture Surgeries, High Risk Population of Hip Fractures
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Risk Sharing vs Risk Dumping: Parental Attitudes About Risks
Pediatric Surgery, Informed Consent
Not yet recruiting
Supporting Families in the ICU
Anxiety, Well-Being
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.
Benjamin H Levi, MD PhD principal investigator
Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Who Would You Choose: Serious Fun in people with Surrogate Decision-making and Healthcare Spokesperson, run by Milton S. Hershey Medical Center at 1 site in United States.
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 3 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: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 20 May 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
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?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 8 Feb 2024). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Number of Participants Who Changed Their Choice of Spokesperson (time frame: 4 weeks). 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 20 May 2025.