Post-Hoc Enthusiasm and Wariness
试验速览
- 阶段
- 不适用
- 状态
- 尚未招募
- 入组人数
- 100
- 主要终点
- Response variable in each survey is a binary recommendation whether to continue the vitamin supplement or discontinue the vitamin supplement
研究概览
简要总结
The post-hoc fallacy (also termed the post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc fallacy) has been recognized for centuries with endless relevance. The general concept in medical care is that patients who improve after a treatment are not necessary patients who improve because of a treatment. Modern medicine provides multiple opportunities to examine such pitfalls of judgment due to the prevailing uncertainty, incompleteness of our understanding pathogenic mechanisms, and natural tendency to connect treatments to outcomes. In this study, we will investigate whether judgments about vitamin supplementation might demonstrate the post-hoc fallacy.
详细描述
We plan to conduct a brief survey of pharmacies portraying a patient in two slightly different versions. One version will portray the patient who feels better after starting a vitamin supplement whereas another version will portray the patient who feels unchanged after starting a vitamin supplement. The patients will be randomly assigned to participants and otherwise contain identical information. Judgments will be measured by eliciting participants recommendation about continuing the vitamin (Appendix_Script).
研究设计
- 研究类型
- Interventional
- 分配方式
- Randomized
- 干预模型
- Parallel
- 主要目的
- Health Services Research
- 盲法
- Double (Participant, Care Provider)
入排标准
- 性别
- All
- 接受健康志愿者
- 是
入选标准
- •Community pharmacist
排除标准
- •Outside Ontario
结局指标
主要结局
Response variable in each survey is a binary recommendation whether to continue the vitamin supplement or discontinue the vitamin supplement
时间窗: Short-term (less than 5 minutes)
Health provider clinical recommendation
次要结局
未报告次要终点
研究者
Dr. Don Redelmeier
Senior Scientist
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre