Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
UNKNOWN
NA
500 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2021-11-01
2022-11-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
The participants are asked to complete the questionnaire of the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale and are exposed to medical triage dilemmas.
Participants are randomized between a group with reading of ethical guidelines and a group without reading of ethical guidelines, before they are asked to complete the questionnaire and being exposed to triage dilemmas.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Impact of a mHealth Supportive Tool on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation' Situational Awareness
NCT04464603
A Vignette-based Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Impact of Supervisor's Role on Research Practices of Doctoral Students
NCT04263506
Pain Evaluation and Treatment in the Emergency Department
NCT02980172
Physician-nurse Team to Reduce Emergency Department (ED) Overcrowding
NCT01219868
Effect of Enhanced Feedback to Hospitals in an Emerging Clinical Information Network
NCT02817971
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
To verify this hypothesis, the score on the Impartial Harm subscale of the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale (IH-OUS) will be compared between a group with reading of ethical guidelines and a group without reading of ethical guidelines, before they are asked to complete the questionnaire and being exposed to triage dilemmas.
Number of subjects needed for the phase of study evaluating intensivists, anesthesiologists and emergency physicians : 580 - based on preliminary data, assuming 70% complete response rate of the survey and a standard deviation of 5
Secondary outcomes will be considered :
* Beneficence Harm subscale of the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale (IB-OUS)
* Values prioritized to resolve ethical dilemmas : impartial of benefits, prioritization of the young age, saving life years, saving most lives, equality of treatment, prioritization of the worst off, loyalty duty, principle of non-discrimination, prospective and retrospective instrumental value.
First phase of the study will aim to include first-line caregivers : intensivists, anesthesiologists, emergency physicians.
Other phases of the study will aim to include health care professionals from other categories and non health care professionals.
Subgroup analyses are planned :
* Analysis according to the characteristics of the participant: gender, geographic location, diploma and type of exercise, category of institution to which the participant is attached.
* Analysis according to the degree of knowledge in ethics, the degree of familiarity with ethical recommendations, the degree of familiarity with moral philosophy, the degree of religiosity, whether the participants declare to have taken knowledge or not of recommendations concerning medical triage in a situation of scarce resources.
It is also planned to carry out ancillary studies in parallel with the realization of the study presented here:
* A study including non-physician participants aiming to identify the differences between non-physicians and physicians in terms of ethical values mobilized in medical triage.
* A study including medical students aiming to identify an association between propensity to make utilitarian and choices of the medical specialty.
* A study focused on the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale, integrating the results of the pilot study and the confirmatory study, aiming to identify predictors of responses to the dilemmas proposed within the scale.
* A study evaluating the association between delay in ethical dilemmas resolution and utilitarian choices.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
OTHER
TRIPLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Intervention
The participants have to read ethical guidelines before they are asked to complete the questionnaire of the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale and exposed to medical triage dilemmas.
Survey
Reading of ethical guidelines.
No intervention
The participants do not have to read ethical guidelines before they are asked to complete the questionnaire of the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale and exposed to medical triage dilemmas.
No interventions assigned to this group
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Survey
Reading of ethical guidelines.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Noncaregivers from general population
Exclusion Criteria
18 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
University of Geneva, Switzerland
OTHER
University Hospital, Caen
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Clément GAKUBA, MD PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
University Hospital, Caen
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Caen University Hospital
Caen, Calvados, France
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Kahane G, Everett JAC, Earp BD, Caviola L, Faber NS, Crockett MJ, Savulescu J. Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology. Psychol Rev. 2018 Mar;125(2):131-164. doi: 10.1037/rev0000093. Epub 2017 Dec 21.
Everett JAC, Faber NS, Savulescu J, Crockett MJ. The costs of being consequentialist: Social inference from instrumental harm and impartial beneficence. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2018 Nov;79:200-216. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2018.07.004.
Emanuel EJ, Persad G, Upshur R, Thome B, Parker M, Glickman A, Zhang C, Boyle C, Smith M, Phillips JP. Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020 May 21;382(21):2049-2055. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb2005114. Epub 2020 Mar 23. No abstract available.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
1475
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.