Don't Throw Your Heart Away: Clinician Study 3

NCT ID: NCT04455893

Last Updated: 2024-10-29

Study Results

Results available

Outcome measurements, participant flow, baseline characteristics, and adverse events have been published for this study.

View full results

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

72 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2020-06-30

Study Completion Date

2020-10-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Publicly available outcome assessments for transplant programs do not make salient that some programs tend to reject many of the hearts they are offered, whereas other programs accept a broader range of donor offers. The investigators use empirical studies to test whether transplant center performance data (i.e. transplant and waitlist outcome statistics) that reflect center donor acceptance rates influence laypersons to evaluate centers with high organ decline rates less favorably than centers with low organ decline rates. 125 heart transplant clinical personnel will be recruited from International Heart and Lung Society (ISHLT) and the Pediatric Heart Transplant Society (PHTS) and randomized to one of two different information presentation conditions. Participants will be asked to view the table of transplant outcomes corresponding to the condition they were randomized to. Each participant is asked to choose the hospital that they would consider to be "higher-performing" between two hospitals: one hospital with a non-selective, "accepting" strategy (takes all donor heart offers), and one hospital with a more selective, "cherrypicking" strategy (tends to reject donor offers that are less than "excellent" quality).

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Publicly available outcome assessments for transplant programs do not make salient that some programs tend to reject many of the hearts they are offered, whereas other programs accept a broader range of donor offers. The investigators use empirical studies to test whether transplant center performance data (i.e. transplant and waitlist outcome statistics) that reflect center donor acceptance rates influence laypersons to evaluate centers with high organ decline rates less favorably than centers with low organ decline rates. 125 heart transplant clinical personnel will be recruited from International Heart and Lung Society (ISHLT) and the Pediatric Heart Transplant Society (PHTS) and randomized to one of two different information presentation conditions. Participants will be asked to view the table of transplant outcomes corresponding to the condition they were randomized to. Each participant is asked to choose the hospital that they would consider to be "higher-performing" between two hospitals: one hospital with a non-selective, "accepting" strategy (takes all donor heart offers), and one hospital with a more selective, "cherrypicking" strategy (tends to reject donor offers that are less than "excellent" quality).

Condition 1 ("baseline" condition): view only combined transplant survival (e.g. transplant survival rate not stratified by number and quality of donor hearts accepted at each center)

Condition 2: view only stratified transplant survival (e.g. transplant survival rate stratified into patients who received excellent donor organs and patients who received less than optimal donor organs)

Participants will then be asked to view the table of transplant outcomes corresponding to the condition they were randomized to. Each participant is asked to choose the hospital that they would consider to be "higher-performing" between two hospitals: one hospital with a non-selective, "accepting" strategy (takes all donor heart offers), and one hospital with a more selective, "cherry-picking" strategy (tends to reject donor offers that are less than "excellent" quality). In order to identify the decision process that underlies this choice pattern, the investigators will examine a putative mediator. Specifically, participants will be asked to rate the extent to which they considered patients' chances of getting an excellent heart, avoiding a less-than-optimal heart, and getting any type of heart when making their choice between the two hospitals.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Cardiac Transplant Disorder

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH

Blinding Strategy

SINGLE

Participants

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Condition 1: Combined only

Participants randomized to baseline (control) arm Condition 1 will view only combined transplant survival outcome information (e.g. transplant survival rate not stratified by number and quality of donor hearts accepted at each center) when making a choice between the two hospitals.

Group Type NO_INTERVENTION

No interventions assigned to this group

Combined 2: Stratified only

Participants randomized to Condition 2 will view only stratified transplant survival outcome information when making a choice between the two hospitals.

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Stratified Transplant Survival

Intervention Type OTHER

The transplant survival rate in the table of outcome statistics is stratified into two groups: (i) patients who received excellent donor organs and (ii) patients who received less than optimal donor organs. Stratified transplant survival is computed from survival rates of transplant patients who received each quality category of organ. excellent transplant survival = \[number of patients surviving after transplant with excellent organ\]/\[number of patients for whom excellent organ was accepted for transplant\] marginal transplant survival = \[number of patients surviving after transplant with marginal organ\]/\[number of patients for whom marginal organ was accepted for transplant\]

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Stratified Transplant Survival

The transplant survival rate in the table of outcome statistics is stratified into two groups: (i) patients who received excellent donor organs and (ii) patients who received less than optimal donor organs. Stratified transplant survival is computed from survival rates of transplant patients who received each quality category of organ. excellent transplant survival = \[number of patients surviving after transplant with excellent organ\]/\[number of patients for whom excellent organ was accepted for transplant\] marginal transplant survival = \[number of patients surviving after transplant with marginal organ\]/\[number of patients for whom marginal organ was accepted for transplant\]

Intervention Type OTHER

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

1. 18 years of age or older
2. must read and understand the information in the consent form
3. must want to participate in the research and continue with the survey
4. must be clinical transplant personnel

Exclusion Criteria

1\. participants who do not meet primary criterion of being clinical transplant personnel.
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Carnegie Mellon University

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Gretchen Chapman

Professor

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Alison E Butler, BS

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Carnegie Mellon University

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Carnegie Mellon University

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United States

Provided Documents

Download supplemental materials such as informed consent forms, study protocols, or participant manuals.

Document Type: Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan

View Document

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

1F30HL152526-01

Identifier Type: NIH

Identifier Source: secondary_id

View Link

1 F30 HL152526-01-C

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.