Psychoeducational Approach to Improve Health in Lupus
Counseling intervention
+ Informational film
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
See all eligibility criteria
Treatment Study
See protocol details
Summary
We will study the relationships among patient/partner communication, social support, and self-efficacy (a person's belief in the ability to manage his or her disease) as they affect the health of people with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE, or lupus) over time. We are assigning 150 people with lupus and their partners to either (1) receive counseling to improve self-efficacy, partner support, and patient/partner problem solving or (2) see an informational film about lupus. We will follow study participants for 12 months to find out about their physical and mental health, disease activity, beliefs that they can take steps that help them feel better, coping, social support, and couples communication. Studies have shown that patient self-efficacy in disease management and social support predict physical and mental health and disease activity in lupus. We wished to study the relationships among patient/partner communication, social support, and self-efficacy as they influence patient health longitudinally. We are randomizing 150 lupus patients and their partners to either (1) participate in a counseling intervention to improve self-efficacy, partner support, and patient/partner problem-solving in lupus management or (2) see an informational film about lupus (control). The counseling intervention includes an initial in-person session followed by five monthly telephone calls to monitor and reinforce problem-solving. We will follow patients for 12 months for self-reported physical and mental health, disease activity, self-efficacy, coping, social support, and couples communication.
Protocol
This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.In this clinical study, participants are placed into groups randomly, like flipping a coin. This ensures that the study is fair and unbiased, making the results more reliable. By assigning participants by chance, researchers can better compare treatments without external influences.
Other Ways to Assign Participants
Non-randomized allocation: Participants are assigned based on specific factors, such as their medical condition or a doctor's decision.
None (Single-arm trial): If the study has only one group, all participants receive the same treatment, and no allocation is needed.
In this study, all participants receive the same treatment. This approach is often used to evaluate the effects of a single intervention without comparing it to another.
Other Ways to Assign Treatments
Parallel assignment: Participants are split into separate groups, each receiving a different treatment.
Cross-over assignment: Participants switch between treatments during the study.
Factorial assignment: Participants receive different combinations of treatments.
Sequential assignment: Participants receive treatments one after another in a specific order, possibly based on individual responses.
Other assignment: Treatment assignment does not follow a standard or predefined design.
Everyone involved in the study knows which treatment is being given. This is typically used when it's not possible or necessary to hide the treatment details from participants or researchers.
Other Ways to Mask Information
Single-blind: Participants do not know which treatment they are receiving, but researchers do.
Double-blind: Neither participants nor researchers know which treatment is given.
Triple-blind: Participants, researchers, and outcome assessors do not know which treatment is given.
Quadruple-blind: Participants, researchers, outcome assessors, and care providers all do not know which treatment is given.
Eligibility
Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria: person's general health condition or prior treatments.Conditions
Criteria
