Mobile Health Application (PACT) to Improve Engagement in Advance Care Planning

This clinical trial tests a new mobile health application (app) called Planning Advance Care Together (PACT) to help people with cancer talk about and plan for advance care planning (the care they would want if they were unable to communicate) with their loved ones and doctors. The development of the PACT mobile app may help future patients incorporate their social network (typically, but not exclusively, family) into the advance care planning process.

OUTLINE: Patients and caregivers are randomized to 1 of 2 arms. ARM I: Participants use PACT mHealth app. ARM II: Participants engage in standard care with no modifications. After completion of study intervention, participants are followed up at 3 and 6 months.

Clinical Stage III Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma AJCC v8, Clinical Stage IV Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma AJCC v8, Clinical Stage IVA Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma AJCC v8, Clinical Stage IVB Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma AJCC v8, Locally Advanced Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma, Locally Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma, Locally Advanced Lung Carcinoma, Locally Advanced Malignant Female Reproductive System Neoplasm, Locally Advanced Pancreatobiliary Carcinoma, Malignant Solid Neoplasm, Metastatic Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma, Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma, Metastatic Lung Carcinoma, Metastatic Malignant Female Reproductive System Neoplasm, Metastatic Pancreatobiliary Carcinoma, Pathologic Stage III Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma AJCC v8, Pathologic Stage IIIA Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma AJCC v8, Pathologic Stage IIIB Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma AJCC v8, Pathologic Stage IV Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma AJCC v8, Pathologic Stage IVA Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma AJCC v8, Pathologic Stage IVB Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma AJCC v8, Postneoadjuvant Therapy Stage III Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma AJCC v8, Postneoadjuvant Therapy Stage IIIA Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma AJCC v8, Postneoadjuvant Therapy Stage IIIB Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma AJCC v8, Postneoadjuvant Therapy Stage IV Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma AJCC v8, Postneoadjuvant Therapy Stage IVA Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma AJCC v8, Postneoadjuvant Therapy Stage IVB Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma AJCC v8, Refractory Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma, Refractory Hepatocellular Carcinoma, Refractory Lung Carcinoma, Refractory Malignant Female Reproductive System Neoplasm, Refractory Pancreatobiliary Carcinoma, Stage III Hepatocellular Carcinoma AJCC v8, Stage III Lung Cancer AJCC v8, Stage IIIA Hepatocellular Carcinoma AJCC v8, Stage IIIA Lung Cancer AJCC v8, Stage IIIB Hepatocellular Carcinoma AJCC v8, Stage IIIB Lung Cancer AJCC v8, Stage IIIC Lung Cancer AJCC v8, Stage IV Hepatocellular Carcinoma AJCC v8, Stage IV Lung Cancer AJCC v8, Stage IVA Hepatocellular Carcinoma AJCC v8, Stage IVA Lung Cancer AJCC v8, Stage IVB Hepatocellular Carcinoma AJCC v8, Stage IVB Lung Cancer AJCC v8

The Acceptability E-Scale is a 6-item scale, scored on a 5-point Likert scale (e.g., 1=very difficult; 5= very easy), with previously demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=.76), with higher values indicating higher levels of acceptability.

The Acceptability E-Scale is a 6-item scale, scored on a 5-point Likert scale (e.g., 1=very difficult; 5= very easy), with previously demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=.76), with higher values indicating higher levels of acceptability.

Usability of the PACT application will be assessed among patients using the System Usability Scale (SUS). The SUS is a 10-item scale, scored on a 5-point Lilkert scale (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree), with higher values indicating higher levels of usability

Usability of the PACT application will be assessed among caregivers using the System Usability Scale (SUS). The SUS is a 10-item scale, scored on a 5-point Lilkert scale (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree), with higher values indicating higher levels of usability

User satisfaction: Patients will engage in an exit interview that assesses their overall satisfaction with the app on a Likert scale ranging from 1-10 (1=not at all satisfied; 10 = extremely satisfied), with higher values indicating higher levels of satisfaction

User satisfaction: Caregivers will engage in an exit interview that assesses their overall satisfaction with the app on a Likert scale ranging from 1-10 (1=not at all satisfied; 10 = extremely satisfied), with higher values indicating higher levels of satisfaction

User engagement will be assessed through tracking of activity (i.e., number of views) over a 3-month period following randomization.

User engagement will be assessed through tracking of activity (i.e., number of views) over a 3-month period following randomization.

User engagement will be assessed through tracking of activity (i.e., time spent on app) over a 3-month period following randomization.

User engagement will be assessed through tracking of activity (i.e., time spent on app) over a 3-month period following randomization.

Patients will be assessed using the reliable and valid Advance Care Planning Engagement Survey: Action Measures. This scale is composed of four sub scales with a total of 18 items. All items are rated on a yes=1 and no=0. Scores can range from 0 (no action taken) to 18 (all actions taken).

Patients will be assessed using the reliable and valid Advance Care Planning Engagement Survey: Action Measures. This scale is composed of four sub scales with a total of 18 items. All items are rated on a yes=1 and no=0. Scores can range from 0 (no action taken) to 18 (all actions taken).

Caregivers will be assessed using an adapted caregiver version of the reliable and valid Advance Care Planning Engagement Survey: Action Measures. This scale is composed of four sub scales with a total of 18 items. All items are rated on a yes=1 and no=0. Scores can range from 0 (no action taken) to 18 (all actions taken).

Caregivers will be assessed using an adapted caregiver version of the reliable and valid Advance Care Planning Engagement Survey: Action Measures. This scale is composed of four sub scales with a total of 18 items. All items are rated on a yes=1 and no=0. Scores can range from 0 (no action taken) to 18 (all actions taken).

This will be measured using our previously utilized 8-item measure of discussing EoL care, living will, HCP, and DNR orders with family and doctor (all yes/no questions).

This will be measured using our previously utilized 8-item measure of discussing EoL care, living will, HCP, and DNR orders with family and doctor (all yes/no questions).

This will be measured using our previously utilized 8-item measure of discussing EoL care, living will, HCP, and DNR orders with patient and patient's doctor) (all yes/no questions).

This will be measured using our previously utilized 8-item measure of discussing EoL care, living will, HCP, and DNR orders with patient and patient's doctor) (all yes/no questions).

This will be assessed by asking patients whether they have completed a Do Not Resuscitate order (DNR), living will, or identified a Health Care Proxy (HCP). All yes/no questions.

This will be assessed by asking patients whether they have completed a Do Not Resuscitate order (DNR), living will, or identified a Health Care Proxy (HCP). All yes/no questions.

This will be assessed in patients with an item used previously in our team's NCI-funded cohort studies that asks patients to express a preference for life-extending versus comfort care (two answer choices).

This will be assessed in patients with an item used previously in our team's NCI-funded cohort studies that asks patients to express a preference for life-extending versus comfort care (two answer choices).

This measure will assess patients' receipt of life-prolonging care (number of emergency room visits, hospital admissions, length of stay in the hospital, rates of ICU admission) and use of palliative or hospice care (length and duration of palliative and/or hospice care). A total score will be created for healthcare utilization.

This measure will assess patients' receipt of life-prolonging care (number of emergency room visits, hospital admissions, length of stay in the hospital, rates of ICU admission) and use of palliative or hospice care (length and duration of palliative and/or hospice care). A total score will be created for healthcare utilization.

This will be determined by comparing patients' treatment preferences to treatment received. Patients matching on their desired and received care will be designated as having received goal-concordant care.

This will be determined by comparing patients' treatment preferences to treatment received. Patients matching on their desired and received care will be designated as having received goal-concordant care.

This will be assessed among patients and caregivers using the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS). The MSPSS is a 12-item valid and reliable measure of social support from family, friends, and significant other, scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree), with previously reported excellent internal reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.84 to 0.92).

This will be assessed among patients and caregivers using the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS). The MSPSS is a 12-item valid and reliable measure of social support from family, friends, and significant other, scored on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree), with previously reported excellent internal reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.84 to 0.92).

This will be assessed among patients and caregivers using the Family Relationship Index (FRI), a scale derived from the Family Environment Scale. FRI consists of 12 true/false items consisting of three subscales (cohesiveness, expressiveness, and conflict resolution) with scores ranging from 1 to 4 with higher scores indicating better family functioning. The FRI is well-validated in cancer patients.

This will be assessed among patients and caregivers using the Family Relationship Index (FRI), a scale derived from the Family Environment Scale. FRI consists of 12 true/false items consisting of three subscales (cohesiveness, expressiveness, and conflict resolution) with scores ranging from 1 to 4 with higher scores indicating better family functioning. The FRI is well-validated in cancer patients.

Inclusion Criteria: PATIENT: Diagnosis of poor prognosis advanced cancer defined as locally advanced or metastatic cancer (e.g., pancreaticobiliary, esophagogastric, hepatocellular carcinoma, lung, or gynecological cancer) and/or disease progression following at least first line chemotherapy. PATIENT: Access to a mobile device; the principal investigator (PI) will ensure that those who have access to a mobile device have access to a mobile device with internet access to ensure they can complete study procedures. PATIENT: The ability to provide informed consent. PATIENT: Identification and enrollment of a loved one/informal caregiver. PATIENT: 18 years of age or older. CAREGIVER: The person (family member or friend) whom the patient indicates being an informal caregiver. CAREGIVER: English speaking. CAREGIVER: 18 years of age or older and able to provide informed consent. Exclusion Criteria: PATIENT: Not fluent in English. PATIENT: Severely cognitively impaired (as measured by Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire scores of >= 6) to be delivered by trained study research staff during screening. PATIENT: Too ill or weak to complete the interviews (as judged by the interviewer). PATIENT: Currently receiving hospice at the time of enrollment. PATIENT: Children and young adults under age 18.

Karnofsky DA. Determining the extent of the cancer and clinical planning for cure. Cancer. 1968 Oct;22(4):730-4. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(196810)22:43.0.co;2-h.

Tariman JD, Berry DL, Halpenny B, Wolpin S, Schepp K. Validation and testing of the Acceptability E-scale for web-based patient-reported outcomes in cancer care. Appl Nurs Res. 2011 Feb;24(1):53-8. doi: 10.1016/j.apnr.2009.04.003. Epub 2009 Sep 18.

Borsci S, Federici S, Lauriola M. On the dimensionality of the System Usability Scale: a test of alternative measurement models. Cogn Process. 2009 Aug;10(3):193-7. doi: 10.1007/s10339-009-0268-9. Epub 2009 Jun 30.

Sudore RL, Stewart AL, Knight SJ, McMahan RD, Feuz M, Miao Y, Barnes DE. Development and validation of a questionnaire to detect behavior change in multiple advance care planning behaviors. PLoS One. 2013 Sep 5;8(9):e72465. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0072465. eCollection 2013.

Mack JW, Weeks JC, Wright AA, Block SD, Prigerson HG. End-of-life discussions, goal attainment, and distress at the end of life: predictors and outcomes of receipt of care consistent with preferences. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Mar 1;28(7):1203-8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.4672. Epub 2010 Feb 1.

Zimet GD, Powell SS, Farley GK, Werkman S, Berkoff KA. Psychometric characteristics of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. J Pers Assess. 1990 Winter;55(3-4):610-7. doi: 10.1080/00223891.1990.9674095.

Kissane DW, McKenzie M, McKenzie DP, Forbes A, O'Neill I, Bloch S. Psychosocial morbidity associated with patterns of family functioning in palliative care: baseline data from the Family Focused Grief Therapy controlled trial. Palliat Med. 2003 Sep;17(6):527-37. doi: 10.1191/0269216303pm808oa.

Edwards B, Clarke V. The validity of the family relationships index as a screening tool for psychological risk in families of cancer patients. Psychooncology. 2005 Jul;14(7):546-54. doi: 10.1002/pon.876.

Brinkman-Stoppelenburg A, Rietjens JA, van der Heide A. The effects of advance care planning on end-of-life care: a systematic review. Palliat Med. 2014 Sep;28(8):1000-25. doi: 10.1177/0269216314526272. Epub 2014 Mar 20.

Garrido MM, Balboni TA, Maciejewski PK, Bao Y, Prigerson HG. Quality of Life and Cost of Care at the End of Life: The Role of Advance Directives. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2015 May;49(5):828-35. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2014.09.015. Epub 2014 Dec 11.

Detering KM, Hancock AD, Reade MC, Silvester W. The impact of advance care planning on end of life care in elderly patients: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2010 Mar 23;340:c1345. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c1345.

Wright AA, Zhang B, Ray A, Mack JW, Trice E, Balboni T, Mitchell SL, Jackson VA, Block SD, Maciejewski PK, Prigerson HG. Associations between end-of-life discussions, patient mental health, medical care near death, and caregiver bereavement adjustment. JAMA. 2008 Oct 8;300(14):1665-73. doi: 10.1001/jama.300.14.1665.

Garrido MM, Harrington ST, Prigerson HG. End-of-life treatment preferences: a key to reducing ethnic/racial disparities in advance care planning? Cancer. 2014 Dec 15;120(24):3981-6. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28970. Epub 2014 Aug 21.

Dow LA, Matsuyama RK, Ramakrishnan V, Kuhn L, Lamont EB, Lyckholm L, Smith TJ. Paradoxes in advance care planning: the complex relationship of oncology patients, their physicians, and advance medical directives. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jan 10;28(2):299-304. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.24.6397. Epub 2009 Nov 23.

Johnson S, Butow P, Kerridge I, Tattersall M. Advance care planning for cancer patients: a systematic review of perceptions and experiences of patients, families, and healthcare providers. Psychooncology. 2016 Apr;25(4):362-86. doi: 10.1002/pon.3926. Epub 2015 Sep 20.

Singer PA, Martin DK, Lavery JV, Thiel EC, Kelner M, Mendelssohn DC. Reconceptualizing advance care planning from the patient's perspective. Arch Intern Med. 1998 Apr 27;158(8):879-84. doi: 10.1001/archinte.158.8.879.

Houben CHM, Spruit MA, Groenen MTJ, Wouters EFM, Janssen DJA. Efficacy of advance care planning: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2014 Jul;15(7):477-489. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2014.01.008. Epub 2014 Mar 2.

Schobel M, Rieskamp J, Huber R. Social Influences in Sequential Decision Making. PLoS One. 2016 Jan 19;11(1):e0146536. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146536. eCollection 2016.

Pfeiffer E. A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1975 Oct;23(10):433-41. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1975.tb00927.x.

Bernard H. Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Lanham, MD: AltaMira; 2005

Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, Baker S, Waterfield J, Bartlam B, Burroughs H, Jinks C. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant. 2018;52(4):1893-1907. doi: 10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8. Epub 2017 Sep 14.

Sandelowski M. What's in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Res Nurs Health. 2010 Feb;33(1):77-84. doi: 10.1002/nur.20362.

Sullivan-Bolyai S, Bova C, Harper D. Developing and refining interventions in persons with health disparities: the use of qualitative description. Nurs Outlook. 2005 May-Jun;53(3):127-33. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2005.03.005.

Bangor A, Kortum P, Miller J. Determining What Individual SUS Scores Mean: Adding an Adjective Rating Scale. Journal of Usability Studies. 2009;4(3):114-123.

Thabane L, Ma J, Chu R, Cheng J, Ismaila A, Rios LP, Robson R, Thabane M, Giangregorio L, Goldsmith CH. A tutorial on pilot studies: the what, why and how. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Jan 6;10:1. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-1. Erratum In: BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023 Mar 11;23(1):59.

Badr H, Smith CB, Goldstein NE, Gomez JE, Redd WH. Dyadic psychosocial intervention for advanced lung cancer patients and their family caregivers: results of a randomized pilot trial. Cancer. 2015 Jan 1;121(1):150-8. doi: 10.1002/cncr.29009. Epub 2014 Sep 10.

Sobel ME. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology. 1982;13:290-312.

Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986 Dec;51(6):1173-82. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173.

Muller D, Judd CM, Yzerbyt VY. When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005 Dec;89(6):852-63. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852.

Preacher KJ, Rucker DD, Hayes AF. Addressing Moderated Mediation Hypotheses: Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions. Multivariate Behav Res. 2007 Jan-Mar;42(1):185-227. doi: 10.1080/00273170701341316.