search
Back to results

ComCancer: Use of Let's Discuss Health Website by Patients With Prostate Cancer Undergoing Radiation Oncology Treatment

Primary Purpose

Prostatic Neoplasms, Psychological Distress, Physician-Patient Relations

Status
Recruiting
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
Canada
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Let's Discuss Health Group
Sponsored by
Ciusss de L'Est de l'Île de Montréal
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional other trial for Prostatic Neoplasms focused on measuring Prostate Cancer, Patient-Physician Communication, Patient Recall of Information, Adult

Eligibility Criteria

18 Years - undefined (Adult, Older Adult)MaleDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria: have a diagnosis of prostate cancer understand, speak and read French report being comfortable using the Internet have access to a computer, tablet or smartphone or know someone who does and is willing to accompany them Exclusion Criteria: being considered unfit to give free and informed consent (e.g. dementia, severe psychiatric condition) any other clinical reason (poor health of the patient at the time of the consultation) that the clinician deems relevant

Sites / Locations

  • Centre intégré de cancérologie de LavalRecruiting
  • Ciusss de l'Est de l'Île de MontréalRecruiting
  • Centre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecRecruiting

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Experimental

No Intervention

Arm Label

Let's Discuss Health Group

Usual Care Group

Arm Description

Patients in this group will be encouraged to prepare each of the four medical encounters targeted in the trajectory in radiation oncology using Let's Discuss Health website, which are the initial visit, the mid-treatment visit, the end-of-treatment visit and the 3-month post-treatment visit.

Patients in this group will received the usual care in the radiation oncology care pathway.

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Patient use of Let's Discuss Health tools
Proportion of patients in the Intervention Group who complete the Let's Discuss Health summary sheet at each of the four targeted visits.
Dialogic rate in the exchanges during the initial patient-radiation oncologist encounter
Using Medicode, the exchanges during the medical encounters will be qualified as dialogue or monologue for each of the topics covered in the discussion of cancer itself and each of the treatment options discussed according to the following themes: designation, dosage, main effect observed, main effect anticipated, side effects observed, possible side effects, indication to consult again, attitudes and emotions and warnings. The dialogic rate (DR) will be generated. It is determined by the proportion of exchanges on a topic that is a dialogue, i.e., a contribution to the content exchanged by each of the interlocutors, and the proportion that is a monologue, i.e., a contribution to the content by a single interlocutor. The DR score ranged between 0 (monologue) and 1 (dialogue). An overall DR score per targeted treatment option will be calculated by aggregating the scores for each of the topics discussed in relation to that treatment.
Dialogic rate of the conversations during the end-of-treatment patient-radiation oncologist encounter
Using Medicode, the exchanges during the medical encounters will be qualified as dialogue or monologue for each of the topics covered in the discussion of cancer itself and each of the treatment options discussed according to the following themes: designation, dosage, main effect observed, main effect anticipated, side effects observed, possible side effects, indication to consult again, attitudes and emotions and warnings. The dialogic rate (DR) will be generated. It is determined by the proportion of exchanges on a topic that is a dialogue, i.e., a contribution to the content exchanged by each of the interlocutors, and the proportion that is a monologue, i.e., a contribution to the content by a single interlocutor. The DR score ranged between 0 (monologue) and 1 (dialogue). An overall DR score per targeted treatment option will be calculated by aggregating the scores for each of the topics discussed in relation to that treatment.
Pre-consultation patient emotional distress during the care trajectory
The psychological distress before the medical encounters throughout the care trajectory will be assessed using the distress thermometer developed by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. The level of emotional distress will be self-rated using a visual analog scale from 0 [no distress] to 10 [extreme distress].
Patient recall of information after the initial encounter
Appropriate patient recall of the information discussed during the medical encounter will be assessed using a home-made questionnaire. Dimensions assessed include severity of the disease, treatment options, side effects, and perceived risk of the disease itself or its treatment. The questionnaire asks patients to indicate whether an information was discussed using a 3-point rating scale (yes, no, I don't remember). For each "yes" answer, patients are asked to provide the information discussed. The answers will be compared to the information coded using MEDICODE. Percentage of correct answers will be reported.
Patient recall of information after the end-of-treatment encounter
Appropriate patient recall of the information discussed during the medical encounter will be assessed using a home-made questionnaire. Dimensions assessed include side effects and their management, when being cured, chances of survival following the treatment, probability of cancer recurrence, and follow-up. The questionnaire asks patients to indicate whether an information was discussed using a 3-point rating scale (yes, no, I don't remember). For each "yes" answer, patients are asked to provide the information discussed. The answers will be compared to the information coded using MEDICODE. Percentage of correct answers will be reported.
Adherence to the care pathway
Measurements of: 1) total number of treatments received compared to what was planned; 2) documented absences from scheduled appointments and reasons; 3) treatment delays and reasons if documented. Data will be extracted from the participant's medical chart and follow-up notes of the nurse.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Patient appreciation of the use of the Let's Discuss Health website
Following the medical encounter, perception of usefulness of Let's Discuss Health website to prepare the visit will be assessed in patients of the Intervention Group only. Each item asks the patient to rate its level of agreement using a 4-point Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree).
Patient perception of the quality of the communication with the radiation oncologist
Patient perception of the quality of the communication with the radiation oncologist (RO) will be assessed using the Communication Assessment Tool (CAT) developed and validated by Makoul et al. The CAT asks patients to rate different dimensions of the communication and interpersonal skills of the RO using a 5-point rating scale (1=poor, 2=fair, 3=good, 4=very good, 5=excellent). Means and percentage of items rated as excellent will be reported.
Radiation oncologist's perception of the quality of the consultation
Following the medical encounter with the participating patient, radiation oncologist (RO) will assess its appreciation of the quality of the communication regarding six items (whether the patient was well prepared, well informed about the cancer, expressed concerns, asked questions, verified its understanding, and whether the RO is satisfied with the discussion). Each item asks the RO to rate its level of agreement with the sentence on a scale of 0 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree).
Frequency of themes discussed during the initial patient-radiation oncologist encounter
Content of the audio-recorded medical encounters will be analysed using Medicode, a validated medical interview coding system that is particularly well suited to discussion on treatments. It allows the description of the exchanged content. The frequency of the topics covered in the discussion of cancer itself and each of the treatment options discussed will be described according to the following themes: designation, dosage, main effect observed, main effect anticipated, side effects observed, possible side effects, indication to consult again, attitudes and emotions and warnings.
Frequency of themes discussed during the end-of-treatment patient-radiation oncologist encounter
Content of the audio-recorded medical encounters will be analysed using Medicode, a validated medical interview coding system that is particularly well suited to discussion on treatments. It allows the description of the exchanged content. The frequency of the topics covered in the discussion of cancer itself and each of the treatment options discussed will be described according to the following themes: designation, dosage, main effect observed, main effect anticipated, side effects observed, possible side effects, indication to consult again, attitudes and emotions and warnings.
Preponderance of initiative in the discussion during the initial patient-radiation oncologist encounter
Using Medicode, the exchanges during the audio-recorded medical encounters will be qualified as who initiated the discussion (patient or radiation oncologist) for each of the topics covered in the discussion of cancer itself and each of the treatment options discussed according to the following themes: designation, dosage, main effect observed, main effect anticipated, side effects observed, possible side effects, indication to consult again, attitudes and emotions and warnings. The preponderance of initiative (PI) will be generated. It determines to what extent the exchanges about each theme are initiated by the physician or the patient. The PI score for each topic discussed ranges from -1 (always the patient) to +1 (always the doctor).
Preponderance of initiative in the discussion during the end-of-treatment patient-radiation oncologist encounter
Using Medicode, the exchanges during the medical encounters will be qualified as who initiated the discussion (patient or radiation oncologist) for each of the topics covered in the discussion of cancer itself and each of the treatment options discussed according to the following themes: designation, dosage, main effect observed, main effect anticipated, side effects observed, possible side effects, indication to consult again, attitudes and emotions and warnings. The preponderance of initiative (PI) will be generated. It determines to what extent the exchanges about each theme are initiated by the physician or the patient. The PI score for each topic discussed ranges from -1 (always the patient) to +1 (always the doctor).
Change in emotional distress following the medical encounter
Level of emotional distress will be assessed before and after medical encounters using the distress thermometer developed by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. The level of emotional distress will be self-rated using a visual analog scale from 0 [no distress] to 10 [extreme distress]. Change in the level will be calculate as the difference between the value post-consultation and pre-consultation.
Qualitative patient appreciation of the use of Let's Discuss Health
Focus groups with patients to explore their appreciation of Let's Discuss Health use during their care trajectory in radiation oncology and identify facilitators and barriers to its implementation. Emergent themes will be identified.
Radiation oncologist appreciation of Let's Discuss Health implementation in clinical routines in radiation oncology
Focus groups with radiation oncologists to explore the appreciation of Let's Discuss Health tools' use and integration into clinical-administrative routines and identify facilitators and barriers to its implementation. Emergent themes will be identified.
Number of problems related to the cancer during the care trajectory
The presence of problems related to the cancer reported by patients will be determined by the Canadian Problem Checklist, a tool developed by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. The number of problems will be reported.
Intensity of symptoms during the care trajectory
The intensity of symptoms related to cancer will be assessed by the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r), a tool developed by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. The intensity of each of the ten symptoms (pain, fatigue, drowsiness, nausea, appetite, shortness of breath, depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, well-being) will be self-reported on a scale of 0 (absence) to 10 (maximum intensity).

Full Information

First Posted
May 14, 2021
Last Updated
March 24, 2023
Sponsor
Ciusss de L'Est de l'Île de Montréal
Collaborators
Hopital Cité de la Santé, CHU de Quebec-Universite Laval
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT05787145
Brief Title
ComCancer: Use of Let's Discuss Health Website by Patients With Prostate Cancer Undergoing Radiation Oncology Treatment
Official Title
ComCancer - Integration Into the Radiation Oncology Care Trajectory of the Let's Discuss Health Website and Evaluation of Its Effects in Patients With Prostate Cancer
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
March 2023
Overall Recruitment Status
Recruiting
Study Start Date
March 10, 2021 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
November 2024 (Anticipated)
Study Completion Date
November 2024 (Anticipated)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Sponsor
Name of the Sponsor
Ciusss de L'Est de l'Île de Montréal
Collaborators
Hopital Cité de la Santé, CHU de Quebec-Universite Laval

4. Oversight

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
No
Data Monitoring Committee
No

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
In Canada, the prevalence of cancer is growing and contributes significantly to health costs. The prevention and treatment of cancer is a major concern of our health system. Many men with prostate cancer develop psychological distress. The emotional consequences of a cancer diagnosis and its treatments can prevent patients from communicating effectively with their healthcare team. It is recognized that the quality of communication between cancer patients and their caregivers plays an important role in the management of their disease. However, few tools are being developed to help clinicians and patients better communicate and decrease patients' psychological distress. Let's Discuss Health (www.discutonssante.ca) is a French-language website that offers several tools to support collaboration between caregivers and cancer patients. The objectives of this research project are to assess the experience of using the Let's Discuss Health website and the impact of its use on the quality of communication between radiation oncologists and patients, the level of distress of patients with prostate cancer, recall of the information discussed as well as adherence to the trajectory in radiation oncology. The project will take place in three radiation oncology centers in Quebec. Two groups of prostate cancer patients will be recruited. Patients in the first group will be assessed on the basis of regular consultations and those in the second group will be encouraged to prepare for their medical visits using the Let's Discuss Health website. Patients and their caregivers will answer short questionnaires before and after four targeted consultations (initial visit, mid-treatment visit, end-of-treatment visit and 3-month post-treatment visit). Focus groups will also be organized to explore the impact of the website. This project offers the potential to transform clinical practices in radiation oncology to reduce the burden of cancer and improve the quality of care offered to patients with cancer.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Prostatic Neoplasms, Psychological Distress, Physician-Patient Relations, Communication, Patient Participation, Adherence, Treatment, Men
Keywords
Prostate Cancer, Patient-Physician Communication, Patient Recall of Information, Adult

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Other
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Sequential Assignment
Model Description
Comparative study in which two distinct groups of patients will be formed, sequentially. Patients from both groups will be assessed by the same radiation oncologists recruited from each of the three centers. In each center, recruited patients will initially be assigned to Group 1 (Usual Care) until 50 patients will be included in the study (for a total of 150 patients in this group). Recruitment will then pursue and patients will be assigned to Group 2 (Intervention) until 50 patients will be included in the study (for a total of 150 patients in this group). Patients in Group 1 (Usual Care) will be assessed during regular consultations of the radiation oncology care pathway. Those in Group 2 (Intervention) will be encouraged to prepare each of the four medical encounters targeted in the usual trajectory in radiation oncology using Let's Discuss Health website. For Group 2, the radiation oncologists will have participated in an workshop on the Let's Discuss Health website.
Masking
None (Open Label)
Allocation
Non-Randomized
Enrollment
300 (Anticipated)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Let's Discuss Health Group
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Patients in this group will be encouraged to prepare each of the four medical encounters targeted in the trajectory in radiation oncology using Let's Discuss Health website, which are the initial visit, the mid-treatment visit, the end-of-treatment visit and the 3-month post-treatment visit.
Arm Title
Usual Care Group
Arm Type
No Intervention
Arm Description
Patients in this group will received the usual care in the radiation oncology care pathway.
Intervention Type
Behavioral
Intervention Name(s)
Let's Discuss Health Group
Other Intervention Name(s)
Pre-consultation patient's preparedness
Intervention Description
Use of the Let's Discuss Health website to prepare four medical encounters with the radiation oncologist throughout the radiation care trajectory.
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Patient use of Let's Discuss Health tools
Description
Proportion of patients in the Intervention Group who complete the Let's Discuss Health summary sheet at each of the four targeted visits.
Time Frame
Through study completion, an average of 8 months
Title
Dialogic rate in the exchanges during the initial patient-radiation oncologist encounter
Description
Using Medicode, the exchanges during the medical encounters will be qualified as dialogue or monologue for each of the topics covered in the discussion of cancer itself and each of the treatment options discussed according to the following themes: designation, dosage, main effect observed, main effect anticipated, side effects observed, possible side effects, indication to consult again, attitudes and emotions and warnings. The dialogic rate (DR) will be generated. It is determined by the proportion of exchanges on a topic that is a dialogue, i.e., a contribution to the content exchanged by each of the interlocutors, and the proportion that is a monologue, i.e., a contribution to the content by a single interlocutor. The DR score ranged between 0 (monologue) and 1 (dialogue). An overall DR score per targeted treatment option will be calculated by aggregating the scores for each of the topics discussed in relation to that treatment.
Time Frame
Baseline (0 week)
Title
Dialogic rate of the conversations during the end-of-treatment patient-radiation oncologist encounter
Description
Using Medicode, the exchanges during the medical encounters will be qualified as dialogue or monologue for each of the topics covered in the discussion of cancer itself and each of the treatment options discussed according to the following themes: designation, dosage, main effect observed, main effect anticipated, side effects observed, possible side effects, indication to consult again, attitudes and emotions and warnings. The dialogic rate (DR) will be generated. It is determined by the proportion of exchanges on a topic that is a dialogue, i.e., a contribution to the content exchanged by each of the interlocutors, and the proportion that is a monologue, i.e., a contribution to the content by a single interlocutor. The DR score ranged between 0 (monologue) and 1 (dialogue). An overall DR score per targeted treatment option will be calculated by aggregating the scores for each of the topics discussed in relation to that treatment.
Time Frame
Up to 5 months
Title
Pre-consultation patient emotional distress during the care trajectory
Description
The psychological distress before the medical encounters throughout the care trajectory will be assessed using the distress thermometer developed by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. The level of emotional distress will be self-rated using a visual analog scale from 0 [no distress] to 10 [extreme distress].
Time Frame
Through study completion, an average of 8 months
Title
Patient recall of information after the initial encounter
Description
Appropriate patient recall of the information discussed during the medical encounter will be assessed using a home-made questionnaire. Dimensions assessed include severity of the disease, treatment options, side effects, and perceived risk of the disease itself or its treatment. The questionnaire asks patients to indicate whether an information was discussed using a 3-point rating scale (yes, no, I don't remember). For each "yes" answer, patients are asked to provide the information discussed. The answers will be compared to the information coded using MEDICODE. Percentage of correct answers will be reported.
Time Frame
Baseline (0 week)
Title
Patient recall of information after the end-of-treatment encounter
Description
Appropriate patient recall of the information discussed during the medical encounter will be assessed using a home-made questionnaire. Dimensions assessed include side effects and their management, when being cured, chances of survival following the treatment, probability of cancer recurrence, and follow-up. The questionnaire asks patients to indicate whether an information was discussed using a 3-point rating scale (yes, no, I don't remember). For each "yes" answer, patients are asked to provide the information discussed. The answers will be compared to the information coded using MEDICODE. Percentage of correct answers will be reported.
Time Frame
Up to 5 months
Title
Adherence to the care pathway
Description
Measurements of: 1) total number of treatments received compared to what was planned; 2) documented absences from scheduled appointments and reasons; 3) treatment delays and reasons if documented. Data will be extracted from the participant's medical chart and follow-up notes of the nurse.
Time Frame
Through care pathway completion, an average of 5 weeks
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Patient appreciation of the use of the Let's Discuss Health website
Description
Following the medical encounter, perception of usefulness of Let's Discuss Health website to prepare the visit will be assessed in patients of the Intervention Group only. Each item asks the patient to rate its level of agreement using a 4-point Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree).
Time Frame
Through study completion, an average of 8 months
Title
Patient perception of the quality of the communication with the radiation oncologist
Description
Patient perception of the quality of the communication with the radiation oncologist (RO) will be assessed using the Communication Assessment Tool (CAT) developed and validated by Makoul et al. The CAT asks patients to rate different dimensions of the communication and interpersonal skills of the RO using a 5-point rating scale (1=poor, 2=fair, 3=good, 4=very good, 5=excellent). Means and percentage of items rated as excellent will be reported.
Time Frame
Through study completion, an average of 8 months
Title
Radiation oncologist's perception of the quality of the consultation
Description
Following the medical encounter with the participating patient, radiation oncologist (RO) will assess its appreciation of the quality of the communication regarding six items (whether the patient was well prepared, well informed about the cancer, expressed concerns, asked questions, verified its understanding, and whether the RO is satisfied with the discussion). Each item asks the RO to rate its level of agreement with the sentence on a scale of 0 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree).
Time Frame
Through study completion, an average of 8 months
Title
Frequency of themes discussed during the initial patient-radiation oncologist encounter
Description
Content of the audio-recorded medical encounters will be analysed using Medicode, a validated medical interview coding system that is particularly well suited to discussion on treatments. It allows the description of the exchanged content. The frequency of the topics covered in the discussion of cancer itself and each of the treatment options discussed will be described according to the following themes: designation, dosage, main effect observed, main effect anticipated, side effects observed, possible side effects, indication to consult again, attitudes and emotions and warnings.
Time Frame
Baseline (0 week)
Title
Frequency of themes discussed during the end-of-treatment patient-radiation oncologist encounter
Description
Content of the audio-recorded medical encounters will be analysed using Medicode, a validated medical interview coding system that is particularly well suited to discussion on treatments. It allows the description of the exchanged content. The frequency of the topics covered in the discussion of cancer itself and each of the treatment options discussed will be described according to the following themes: designation, dosage, main effect observed, main effect anticipated, side effects observed, possible side effects, indication to consult again, attitudes and emotions and warnings.
Time Frame
Up to 5 months
Title
Preponderance of initiative in the discussion during the initial patient-radiation oncologist encounter
Description
Using Medicode, the exchanges during the audio-recorded medical encounters will be qualified as who initiated the discussion (patient or radiation oncologist) for each of the topics covered in the discussion of cancer itself and each of the treatment options discussed according to the following themes: designation, dosage, main effect observed, main effect anticipated, side effects observed, possible side effects, indication to consult again, attitudes and emotions and warnings. The preponderance of initiative (PI) will be generated. It determines to what extent the exchanges about each theme are initiated by the physician or the patient. The PI score for each topic discussed ranges from -1 (always the patient) to +1 (always the doctor).
Time Frame
Baseline (0 week)
Title
Preponderance of initiative in the discussion during the end-of-treatment patient-radiation oncologist encounter
Description
Using Medicode, the exchanges during the medical encounters will be qualified as who initiated the discussion (patient or radiation oncologist) for each of the topics covered in the discussion of cancer itself and each of the treatment options discussed according to the following themes: designation, dosage, main effect observed, main effect anticipated, side effects observed, possible side effects, indication to consult again, attitudes and emotions and warnings. The preponderance of initiative (PI) will be generated. It determines to what extent the exchanges about each theme are initiated by the physician or the patient. The PI score for each topic discussed ranges from -1 (always the patient) to +1 (always the doctor).
Time Frame
Up to 5 months
Title
Change in emotional distress following the medical encounter
Description
Level of emotional distress will be assessed before and after medical encounters using the distress thermometer developed by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. The level of emotional distress will be self-rated using a visual analog scale from 0 [no distress] to 10 [extreme distress]. Change in the level will be calculate as the difference between the value post-consultation and pre-consultation.
Time Frame
Through study completion, an average of 8 months
Title
Qualitative patient appreciation of the use of Let's Discuss Health
Description
Focus groups with patients to explore their appreciation of Let's Discuss Health use during their care trajectory in radiation oncology and identify facilitators and barriers to its implementation. Emergent themes will be identified.
Time Frame
At the end of the study, up to 1.5 years
Title
Radiation oncologist appreciation of Let's Discuss Health implementation in clinical routines in radiation oncology
Description
Focus groups with radiation oncologists to explore the appreciation of Let's Discuss Health tools' use and integration into clinical-administrative routines and identify facilitators and barriers to its implementation. Emergent themes will be identified.
Time Frame
At the end of the study, up to 1.5 years
Title
Number of problems related to the cancer during the care trajectory
Description
The presence of problems related to the cancer reported by patients will be determined by the Canadian Problem Checklist, a tool developed by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. The number of problems will be reported.
Time Frame
Through study completion, an average of 8 months
Title
Intensity of symptoms during the care trajectory
Description
The intensity of symptoms related to cancer will be assessed by the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r), a tool developed by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. The intensity of each of the ten symptoms (pain, fatigue, drowsiness, nausea, appetite, shortness of breath, depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, well-being) will be self-reported on a scale of 0 (absence) to 10 (maximum intensity).
Time Frame
Through study completion, an average of 8 months

10. Eligibility

Sex
Male
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: have a diagnosis of prostate cancer understand, speak and read French report being comfortable using the Internet have access to a computer, tablet or smartphone or know someone who does and is willing to accompany them Exclusion Criteria: being considered unfit to give free and informed consent (e.g. dementia, severe psychiatric condition) any other clinical reason (poor health of the patient at the time of the consultation) that the clinician deems relevant
Central Contact Person:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name or Official Title & Degree
Marie-Thérèse Lussier, MD, MSc
Phone
514-966-4615
Email
marie.therese.lussier@umontreal.ca
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name or Official Title & Degree
Marie-Eve Lavoie, PhD
Phone
514-966-4615
Email
marie.eve.lavoie.cissslav@ssss.gouv.qc.ca
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Marie-Thérèse Lussier, MD, MSc
Organizational Affiliation
Centre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Marie-Andrée Fortin, MD
Organizational Affiliation
Centre intégré de cancérologie de Laval
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Centre intégré de cancérologie de Laval
City
Laval
State/Province
Quebec
ZIP/Postal Code
H7M 3L9
Country
Canada
Individual Site Status
Recruiting
Facility Contact:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Marie-Eve Lavoie, PhD
Phone
514-966-4615
Email
marie.eve.lavoie.cissslav@ssss.gouv.qc.ca
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Marie-Andrée Fortin, MD
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Moein Alizadeh, MD
Facility Name
Ciusss de l'Est de l'Île de Montréal
City
Montréal
State/Province
Quebec
Country
Canada
Individual Site Status
Recruiting
Facility Contact:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Marie-Eve Lavoie, PhD
Phone
514-966-4615
Email
marie.eve.lavoie.cissslav@ssss.gouv.qc.ca
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Israël Fortin, MD
Facility Name
Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
City
Québec
Country
Canada
Individual Site Status
Recruiting
Facility Contact:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Marie-Eve Lavoie, PhD
Phone
514-966-4615
Email
marie.eve.lavoie.cissslav@ssss.gouv.qc.ca
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
William Foster, MD
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Isabelle Germain, MD

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Learn more about this trial

ComCancer: Use of Let's Discuss Health Website by Patients With Prostate Cancer Undergoing Radiation Oncology Treatment

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs