Learning Effective New Strategies for Worry in Parkinson's Disease (LENS-PD)
Primary Purpose
Parkinson Disease, Anxiety
Status
Unknown status
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
United Kingdom
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Interpretation bias training
Sponsored by
About this trial
This is an interventional other trial for Parkinson Disease
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
- Diagnosed with idiopathic Parkinson's Disease
- can use a computer independently
- have (correct to) normal hearing
- scores above 62 on the Penn State Worry Questionnaire
Exclusion Criteria:
- Those who have previously taken part in lab-based studies at King's College London where measures of interpretation bias were included.
- Currently or have recently (past six months) received psychological treatment.
- If participants are currently taking anti-depressants or anti-anxiety medication, they need to have been stable on the same dose for at least six weeks.
- Participants who score 2 or higher on the ninth item of the Patient Health Questionnaire-- (measuring suicidal ideation) at screening will be excluded.
- If individuals do not have regular access to a computer and/or the internet, they will be excluded.
- Those who can not concentrated on the questions asked during the Modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status, or are confused by the questions asked.
Sites / Locations
- King's College LondonRecruiting
Arms of the Study
Arm 1
Arm 2
Arm Type
Experimental
Sham Comparator
Arm Label
Active
Control
Arm Description
Outcomes
Primary Outcome Measures
Acceptability; rating of online training
Whether participants accept the online nature of the training (extent of positive feedback compared to negative feedback)
Acceptability; lack of face-to-face contact
Whether participants accept the lack of face-to-face contact
Acceptability; number of assignments
Whether participants accept the number of assignments
Acceptability; duration of assignments
Whether participants accept the duration of assignments
Acceptability; reminders
Whether participants accept the text messages/e-mail/phone call reminders
Acceptability; randomisation
Proportion of eligible participants who agree to being randomised to those who do not agree
Training feasibility; rate of recruitment
The feasibility of the training based on the rate of recruitment
Training feasibility; retention rates
The feasibility of the training based on the retention rates during the training
Training feasibility; study adherence
The feasibility of the training based on the adherence to the study (number of assignments completed)
Training feasibility; retention at one-month follow-up
The feasibility of the training based on the retention rates at follow-up (i.e., number of missing cases or drop outs at the one month follow-up)
Training feasibility; retention at three-month follow-up
The feasibility of the training based on the retention rates at follow-up (i.e., number of missing cases or drop outs at the three month follow-up)
Secondary Outcome Measures
Decrease in worry (estimation of effect size); post-training
The extent that worry has changed from before to after training in the active condition compared to the control condition based on the Penn State Worry Questionnaire (scores can range from 16 to 80; higher scores indicate more worry)
Decrease in worry (estimation of effect size); at one-month follow-up
The extent that worry has changed from before training to the one month follow-up in the active compared to the control condition, as mediated by post-training worry scores, based on the Penn State Worry Questionnaire (scores can range from 16 to 80; higher scores indicate more worry)
Decrease in worry (estimation of effect size); at three-months follow-up
The extent that worry has changed from before training to three months after training in the active condition compared to the control condition, as mediated by post-training worry scores, based on the Penn State Worry Questionnaire (scores can range from 16 to 80; higher scores indicate more worry)
Full Information
1. Study Identification
Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT04007718
Brief Title
Learning Effective New Strategies for Worry in Parkinson's Disease
Acronym
LENS-PD
Official Title
Learning Effective New Strategies - Parkinson's Disease
Study Type
Interventional
2. Study Status
Record Verification Date
October 2019
Overall Recruitment Status
Unknown status
Study Start Date
July 15, 2019 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
March 31, 2020 (Anticipated)
Study Completion Date
March 31, 2020 (Anticipated)
3. Sponsor/Collaborators
Responsible Party, by Official Title
Principal Investigator
Name of the Sponsor
King's College London
4. Oversight
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
No
5. Study Description
Brief Summary
High rates of anxiety and worry has been observed in people with Parkinson's (PwP). Previous research outside of PwP has shown that individuals with anxiety have a habit of interpreting ambiguous information in a negative manner (i.e., interpretation bias), and that it is possible to encourage a more positive interpretation bias through an online training.
In the current study, the aim is to test the acceptability and feasibility of an online training program that aims to encourage more positive interpretation bias in high worrying PwP. Participants complete an online baseline assessment, and are then invited to complete ten training sessions over a period of three weeks followed by another assessment and follow-up assessments (at 1 month & 3 months). Participants are randomized into either the active condition or control condition. Across both conditions, participants will listen to short, everyday scenarios which are ambiguous (could end positively or negatively). In the active condition, a positive ending is given in half of the scenarios. In the other half, participants are instructed to imagine positive endings to ambiguous scenarios. In the control condition, all scenarios end ambiguously and no instructions are given about imagining positive endings.
The primary aim of the study is to test the acceptability and feasibility of the online training platform. Participants will complete a feasibility interview after completing the training. Specifically, the acceptability of the following will be tested: i) the online nature of the training (and lack of face-to-face contact); ii) being randomised into one of the two conditions; iii) the number and duration of the assignments; and iv) the text messages/e-mail/phone call reminders to complete the assignments. The feasibility of the online training platform will be judged on the i) rate of recruitment; ii) retention rates during the training; iii) adherence to the study (i.e., number of assignments completed); iv) retention rates at follow-up. The secondary aim is to estimate the effect size of the active condition (vs. control; on worry scores post-training, and at follow-ups) to inform power analyses for a future randomised control trial.
It is hypothesised that the training will be acceptable and feasible in a high worrying PwP sample. It is also hypothesised that the training will be effective in reducing worry and improving interpretation bias.
6. Conditions and Keywords
Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Parkinson Disease, Anxiety
7. Study Design
Primary Purpose
Other
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
ParticipantOutcomes Assessor
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
60 (Anticipated)
8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions
Arm Title
Active
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Title
Control
Arm Type
Sham Comparator
Intervention Type
Behavioral
Intervention Name(s)
Interpretation bias training
Intervention Description
Active: 50% positive endings to scenarios, 50% generation of positive endings to ambiguous scenarios Control: 100% ambiguous endings to scenarios with no instructions to imagine positive endings
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Acceptability; rating of online training
Description
Whether participants accept the online nature of the training (extent of positive feedback compared to negative feedback)
Time Frame
At approximately 4 weeks (during the feasibility interview)
Title
Acceptability; lack of face-to-face contact
Description
Whether participants accept the lack of face-to-face contact
Time Frame
At approximately 4 weeks (during the feasibility interview)
Title
Acceptability; number of assignments
Description
Whether participants accept the number of assignments
Time Frame
At approximately 4 weeks (during the feasibility interview)
Title
Acceptability; duration of assignments
Description
Whether participants accept the duration of assignments
Time Frame
At approximately 4 weeks (during the feasibility interview)
Title
Acceptability; reminders
Description
Whether participants accept the text messages/e-mail/phone call reminders
Time Frame
At approximately 4 weeks (during the feasibility interview)
Title
Acceptability; randomisation
Description
Proportion of eligible participants who agree to being randomised to those who do not agree
Time Frame
Participants are asked during the eligibility call prior to starting the training if they are happy to be randomised. As such, acceptability to be randomised is at baseline.
Title
Training feasibility; rate of recruitment
Description
The feasibility of the training based on the rate of recruitment
Time Frame
From recruitment start (moment when Parkinson's UK [United Kingdom] advertise the study) till study close (either end of November, 2019, or when the recruitment target is met; approximately 5 months)
Title
Training feasibility; retention rates
Description
The feasibility of the training based on the retention rates during the training
Time Frame
Duration of study (approximately 5 months)
Title
Training feasibility; study adherence
Description
The feasibility of the training based on the adherence to the study (number of assignments completed)
Time Frame
Assignments are completed over three weeks, with a possibility of a one week extension for those who have not completed at least 8 in the three weeks.
Title
Training feasibility; retention at one-month follow-up
Description
The feasibility of the training based on the retention rates at follow-up (i.e., number of missing cases or drop outs at the one month follow-up)
Time Frame
Duration of study (approximately 5 months)
Title
Training feasibility; retention at three-month follow-up
Description
The feasibility of the training based on the retention rates at follow-up (i.e., number of missing cases or drop outs at the three month follow-up)
Time Frame
Duration of study (approximately 5 months)
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Decrease in worry (estimation of effect size); post-training
Description
The extent that worry has changed from before to after training in the active condition compared to the control condition based on the Penn State Worry Questionnaire (scores can range from 16 to 80; higher scores indicate more worry)
Time Frame
Baseline worry scores will be compared to worry scores after the training (assessment 2; completed approximately 3 weeks later)
Title
Decrease in worry (estimation of effect size); at one-month follow-up
Description
The extent that worry has changed from before training to the one month follow-up in the active compared to the control condition, as mediated by post-training worry scores, based on the Penn State Worry Questionnaire (scores can range from 16 to 80; higher scores indicate more worry)
Time Frame
Baseline worry scores will be compared to worry scores at the one-month follow-up
Title
Decrease in worry (estimation of effect size); at three-months follow-up
Description
The extent that worry has changed from before training to three months after training in the active condition compared to the control condition, as mediated by post-training worry scores, based on the Penn State Worry Questionnaire (scores can range from 16 to 80; higher scores indicate more worry)
Time Frame
Baseline worry scores will be compared to worry scores at the three-months follow-up
Other Pre-specified Outcome Measures:
Title
Improvement in interpretation bias (scrambled sentences task)
Description
Whether scores on the scrambled sentences task have changed specifically in the training condition. The scrambled sentences tasks involves unscrambling 20 sentences to form either position or negative solutions and is calculated by the proportion of negative solutions to positive solution (i.e., higher scores = more negative interpretation bias).
Time Frame
Comparing baseline scores to post-training (assessment 2; completed approximately 3 weeks later) scores
Title
Improvement in interpretation bias (recognition test)
Description
Whether scores on the recognition test have changed specifically in the training condition. The recognition test involves reading ten (ambiguous) scenarios and subsequently rating 4 sentences per scenario on how similar in meaning the (positive and negative) sentences are to the original scenario. Scores are based on how highly negative sentences are scored compared to positive sentences (i.e., higher scores = more negative interpretation bias).
Time Frame
Comparing baseline scores to post-training (assessment 2; completed approximately 3 weeks later) scores
10. Eligibility
Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
Diagnosed with idiopathic Parkinson's Disease
can use a computer independently
have (correct to) normal hearing
scores above 62 on the Penn State Worry Questionnaire
Exclusion Criteria:
Those who have previously taken part in lab-based studies at King's College London where measures of interpretation bias were included.
Currently or have recently (past six months) received psychological treatment.
If participants are currently taking anti-depressants or anti-anxiety medication, they need to have been stable on the same dose for at least six weeks.
Participants who score 2 or higher on the ninth item of the Patient Health Questionnaire-- (measuring suicidal ideation) at screening will be excluded.
If individuals do not have regular access to a computer and/or the internet, they will be excluded.
Those who can not concentrated on the questions asked during the Modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status, or are confused by the questions asked.
Facility Information:
Facility Name
King's College London
City
London
ZIP/Postal Code
SE5 8AF
Country
United Kingdom
Individual Site Status
Recruiting
Facility Contact:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Lonneke A van Tuijl, PhD
Phone
+31 503616655
Email
Lonneke.van_tuijl@kcl.ac.uk
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Hannah C Krzyzanowski, MSc
Phone
+44 207848 5025
Email
hannah.c.krzyzanowski@kcl.ac.uk
12. IPD Sharing Statement
Plan to Share IPD
No
IPD Sharing Plan Description
Given the small sample size and specific characteristics of the sample - there is increased likeliness of identifying someone who took part. Other researchers can request data - this will be reviewed by the team per request to ensure there is no possibility to identify any individuals.
Learn more about this trial
Learning Effective New Strategies for Worry in Parkinson's Disease
We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs