AzTrials
AzTrials

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.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

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
What is being tested?
Who Would You Choose: Serious Fun
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

Other trials in United States

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 groups in NCT04599166
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Participant armExperimentalParticipants 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.

  1. 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)
  1. 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

  2. Spokesperson Response (Percentage)

    Percentage of spokespersons who responded to participant request following intervention

    Measured: 8 weeks

  3. 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.

  1. First posted22 Oct 2020
  2. Study start3 Aug 2021
  3. Primary completion7 Dec 2022
  4. Study completion7 Dec 2022

Resources

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)
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
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.

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.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in