Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| University of Geneva, Switzerland | OTHER |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The XPHI-COVID-2 randomized study aims to investigate the moral choices in a context of scarce resources.
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.
It is hypothesized that recalling ethical values before resolving dilemmas could modify the ability to adopt a utilitarian approach in resolving ethical dilemmas.
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 :
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 :
It is also planned to carry out ancillary studies in parallel with the realization of the study presented here:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Experimental | 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. |
|
| No intervention | 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. |
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Survey | Other | Reading of ethical guidelines. |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| IH-OUS score | Score on the Impartial Harm subscale of the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale (IH-OUS) : minimum value is 4 points and maximum value is 28 points. The higher the value is, the more the participant's choices endorse the principle of causing harm to bring the greater good. | At the end of the inclusion period |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Utilitarian score | One point is given for each choice consistent with utilitarian principles when solving triage dilemmas, scaling this score from 0 to 14. | At the end of the inclusion period |
| IB-OUS score |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Role | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clément GAKUBA, MD PhD | Contact | +33231064736 | gakuba-c@chu-caen.fr | |
| Florian COVA, PhD | Contact | Florian.Cova@unige.ch |
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Clément GAKUBA, MD PhD | University Hospital, Caen | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caen University Hospital | Recruiting | Caen | Calvados | 14000 | France |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 29265854 | Background | 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. | |
| Background | Capraro, V., Earp, B.D., & Everett, J.A.C. (2019). Priming intuition disfavors instrumental harm but not impartial beneficence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 83, 142-149. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2019.04.006. | ||
| 32202722 |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D000086382 | COVID-19 |
| D033262 | Narration |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D011024 | Pneumonia, Viral |
| D011014 | Pneumonia |
| D012141 | Respiratory Tract Infections |
| D007239 | Infections |
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D011795 | Surveys and Questionnaires |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D003625 | Data Collection |
| D004812 | Epidemiologic Methods |
| D008919 | Investigative Techniques |
| D017531 | Health Care Evaluation Mechanisms |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Score on the Instrumental Beneficence subscale of the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale (IB-OUS) : minimum value is 5 points and maximum value is 35 points.
The higher the value is, the more the participant's choices endorse the impartial maximization of the greater good, even at the cost of personal self-sacrifice.
| At the end of the inclusion period |
| Oxford utilitarianism scale | Bi-dimensional scale of utilitarian thinking associating the impartial harm and the beneficence subscale. The minimum value is 9 points and the maximum value is 63 points. This scale aims to assess the utilitarian tendencies in people who are not philosophy professionals. | At the end of the inclusion period |
| Impartial of benefits | Principle of impartial assignment of resources used in resolving ethical dilemmas. The value will be considered as respected by the majority of participants if more than 50% of respondents make a choice of a patient in accordance with this value. | At the end of the inclusion period |
| Prioritization of the young age | Propensity to prioritize the youngest person in ethical dilemmas. The value will be considered as respected by the majority of participants if more than 50% of respondents make a choice of a patient in accordance with this value. | At the end of the inclusion period |
| Saving life years | Propensity to save the most life years in resolving ethical dilemmas. The value will be considered as respected by the majority of participants if more than 50% of respondents make a choice of a patient in accordance with this value. | At the end of the inclusion period |
| Saving most lives | Propensity to save most lives in resolving ethical dilemmas. The value will be considered as respected by the majority of participants if more than 50% of respondents make a choice of a patient in accordance with this value. | At the end of the inclusion period |
| Equality of treatment | Propensity to treat people equally in ethical dilemmas. The value will be considered as respected by the majority of participants if more than 50% of respondents make a choice of a patient in accordance with this value. | At the end of the inclusion period |
| Prioritization of the worst off | Propensity to prioritize the worst off in ethical dilemmas. The value will be considered as respected by the majority of participants if more than 50% of respondents make a choice of a patient in accordance with this value. | At the end of the inclusion period |
| Duty of loyalty | Propensity of the caregiver to feel obliged vis-a-vis the patient The value will be considered as respected by the majority of participants if more than 50% of respondents make a choice of a patient in accordance with this value. | At the end of the inclusion period |
| Principle of non-discrimination (based on age, disability, socio-economic characteristics, gender, etc.) | The non-discrimination principle requires the equal treatment of an individual or group irrespective of their particular characteristics. The value will be considered as respected by the majority of participants if more than 50% of respondents make a choice of a patient in accordance with this value. | At the end of the inclusion period |
| Prospective instrumental value | Propensity to promote and reward prospective instrumental value, based on future facts. The value will be considered as respected by the majority of participants if more than 50% of respondents make a choice of a patient in accordance with this value. | At the end of the inclusion period |
| Retrospective instrumental value | Propensity to promote and reward retrospective instrumental value, based on past facts. The value will be considered as respected by the majority of participants if more than 50% of respondents make a choice of a patient in accordance with this value. | At the end of the inclusion period |
| Background |
| 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. |
| D014777 |
| Virus Diseases |
| D018352 | Coronavirus Infections |
| D003333 | Coronaviridae Infections |
| D030341 | Nidovirales Infections |
| D012327 | RNA Virus Infections |
| D008171 | Lung Diseases |
| D012140 | Respiratory Tract Diseases |
| D003142 | Communication |
| D001519 | Behavior |
| D011787 | Quality of Health Care |
| D017530 | Health Care Quality, Access, and Evaluation |
| D011634 | Public Health |
| D004778 | Environment and Public Health |