What is the mechanism of action of this treatment?

The most common treatments for improving decision-making in high-stakes medical scenarios, such as those studied in the Multi-component Strategy trial, focus on reducing bias, employing objective criteria, and enhancing group dynamics. Reducing bias ensures that decisions are based on objective data rather than subjective opinions, which is crucial for fairness. Using objective criteria standardizes the decision-making process, making it more transparent and reproducible. Improving group dynamics fosters better communication and collaboration among decision-makers, leading to more balanced and well-considered outcomes. These mechanisms are essential for ensuring equitable and effective allocation of treatments, such as advanced heart failure therapies.

What side effects are associated with this type of intervention?

Common treatments for decision-making in advanced heart failure therapies, such as those studied in the SOCIAL HF trial, involve multi-component strategies aimed at reducing bias, using objective criteria, and improving group dynamics. While these strategies are primarily procedural and organizational, potential side effects may include increased administrative burden, potential resistance from healthcare providers due to changes in established practices, and the need for extensive training and adaptation periods. Additionally, the implementation of these strategies may initially slow down decision-making processes as teams adjust to new protocols.

What prior FDA approvals exist?

There are no specific FDA-approved treatments explicitly for decision-making. However, cognitive enhancers like modafinil have been studied for their potential to improve cognitive functions, which can indirectly influence decision-making. Additionally, therapies aimed at improving mental health, such as antidepressants and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), can also impact decision-making by enhancing overall cognitive function and emotional regulation.

What other types of research exist?

Promising novel alternatives for decision-making in patients considering treatment in 2024 include the use of advanced AI-driven decision support systems, personalized medicine approaches leveraging genomic data, and enhanced patient engagement platforms that incorporate real-time data and patient feedback. These strategies aim to reduce bias, provide objective criteria, and improve group dynamics by offering tailored treatment options and facilitating shared decision-making between patients and healthcare providers.

← Back to Search

Allocation Method for Advanced Heart Failure (SOCIAL HF Trial)

N/A

Waitlist Available

Led By Khadijah Breathett, MD, MS

Research Sponsored by Indiana University

Eligibility Criteria Checklist

Specific guidelines that determine who can or cannot participate in a clinical trial

Must have

Be older than 18 years old

Timeline

Screening 3 weeks

Treatment Varies

Follow Up month 2, up to 2 years, and up to 2.5 years

Awards & highlights

No Placebo-Only Group

Summary

This trial aims to test SOCIAL HF, a set of guidelines to ensure fair allocation of advanced heart failure treatments. It targets patients needing heart transplants or special heart pumps. SOCIAL HF works by reducing bias, using objective criteria, and improving decision-making processes.

Who is the study for?

This trial is for heart transplant and ventricular assist device centers that see at least 50 minority patients and 50 women over two years. It includes professionals like coordinators, physicians, pharmacists, nurses, social workers involved in advanced therapy decisions. Centers not fully able to participate or no longer active are excluded.

What is being tested?

The SOCIAL HF trial tests a strategy aimed at equitable allocation of heart failure therapies by reducing bias and using objective criteria over subjective judgment. The study's design may influence national guidelines on how advanced therapies for chronic diseases are allocated.

What are the potential side effects?

Since this trial focuses on decision-making processes rather than direct patient interventions, it does not involve medical side effects. However, the outcomes could affect how treatments like transplants are distributed among patients.

Timeline

Screening ~ 3 weeks3 visits

Treatment ~ Varies

Follow Up ~ month 2, up to 2 years, and up to 2.5 years

Screening ~ 3 weeks

Treatment ~ Varies

Follow Up ~month 2, up to 2 years, and up to 2.5 years

This trial's timeline: 3 weeks for screening, Varies for treatment, and month 2, up to 2 years, and up to 2.5 years for reporting.

Treatment Details

Study Objectives

Study objectives can provide a clearer picture of what you can expect from a treatment.

Primary study objectives

Change in SOCIAL HF fidelity from time of training completion (month 2) to time study target has been reached (up to 2 years) and 6 months after reaching study target (up to 2.5 years)

Secondary study objectives

Adoption of SOCIAL HF

Change from baseline knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported behavior change among clinicians at 2 months and time at which study target has been reached (up to 2 years)

Change from baseline sum group function scores at 2 months and time at which study target has been reached (up to 2 years)

+3 more

Awards & Highlights

No Placebo-Only Group

All patients enrolled in this study will receive some form of active treatment.

Trial Design

2Treatment groups

Experimental Treatment

Active Control

Group I: Sites Randomized to SOCIAL HFExperimental Treatment1 Intervention

SOCIAL HF is composed of evidence-based bias reduction training, employment of objective measures of social support, and changes to facilitate group dynamics.

Group II: Control SitesActive Control1 Intervention

No Intervention

Do I qualify?Apply below to find out

Research Highlights

Information in this section is not a recommendation. We encourage patients to speak with their healthcare team when evaluating any treatment decision.

Mechanism Of Action

Side Effect Profile

Prior Approvals

Other Research

The most common treatments for improving decision-making in high-stakes medical scenarios, such as those studied in the Multi-component Strategy trial, focus on reducing bias, employing objective criteria, and enhancing group dynamics. Reducing bias ensures that decisions are based on objective data rather than subjective opinions, which is crucial for fairness. Using objective criteria standardizes the decision-making process, making it more transparent and reproducible. Improving group dynamics fosters better communication and collaboration among decision-makers, leading to more balanced and well-considered outcomes. These mechanisms are essential for ensuring equitable and effective allocation of treatments, such as advanced heart failure therapies.

Patient-Centred Care of Older Adults With Cardiovascular Disease and Multiple Chronic Conditions.An updated systematic review of lung chemo-radiotherapy using a new evidence aggregation method.