Effect of Surgical Planning Prompts on Elective Surgery Acceptance Rate
Summary
NIH registered a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial (NCT07544641) testing whether structured self-reflection prompts—asking patients to articulate personal conditions for accepting elective cataract surgery—affect their subsequent decision to undergo the procedure. The trial will enroll eligible cataract patients informed of surgical indications at outpatient visits, randomizing them 1:1 to a structured writing intervention group or a control group with no writing task, with both groups receiving the same standardized diagnostic information and follow-up questionnaires.
“This randomized, double-blind, controlled trial investigates whether prompting patients facing elective cataract surgery to articulate their specific conditions for choosing surgery (a structured self-reflection intervention commonly used in Shared Decision-Making) affects their subsequent decision to undergo the procedure.”
About this source
GovPing monitors ClinicalTrials.gov Studies for new healthcare & life sciences regulatory changes. Every update since tracking began is archived, classified, and available as free RSS or email alerts — 627 changes logged to date.
What changed
NIH registered a new randomized controlled trial (NCT07544641) investigating the effect of structured self-reflection interventions on elective cataract surgery acceptance rates. Eligible patients will be randomized 1:1 to write about personal conditions for accepting surgery or to a no-writing control group, with both receiving identical standardized cataract information. The primary outcome is surgery registration within 6 months of initial consultation; secondary outcomes include patient-reported understanding, treatment clarity, anxiety, and perceived urgency.
Healthcare providers conducting shared decision-making for elective procedures should be aware of this trial's design. The structured writing protocol (structured writing about personal conditions for accepting surgery) represents a specific intervention approach that, if successful, could inform patient communication practices in ophthalmology and similar elective surgical settings.
Archived snapshot
Apr 22, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
Effect of Surgical Planning Prompts on Elective Surgery Acceptance Rate
N/A NCT07544641 Kind: NA Apr 22, 2026
Abstract
This randomized, double-blind, controlled trial investigates whether prompting patients facing elective cataract surgery to articulate their specific conditions for choosing surgery (a structured self-reflection intervention commonly used in Shared Decision-Making) affects their subsequent decision to undergo the procedure. Eligible cataract patients who have been informed of surgical indications at an outpatient visit will be randomly assigned 1:1 to an intervention group (structured writing about personal conditions for accepting surgery) or a control group (no writing task). Both groups read the same standardized information about cataract diagnosis and treatment, and both complete the same set of follow-up questionnaire items. Three treating physicians independently rate their degree of surgical recommendation for each patient; these ratings along with baseline clinical measures are included as covariates in the analysis. The primary outcome is whether participants register for cataract surgery within 6 months of their initial outpatient consultation. Secondary outcomes include self-reported understanding of the condition, clarity of treatment plan, condition-related anxiety, perceived urgency, perceived helpfulness of the consultation, semantic analysis of written responses, and patient experience measures.
Conditions: Cataract
Interventions: Structured Surgical Planning Self-Reflection
Related changes
Get daily alerts for ClinicalTrials.gov Studies
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Source
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from NIH.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when ClinicalTrials.gov Studies publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.