Buhr Russell G, Huang Cher X, Romero Ruby, Wisk Lauren E
Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, 1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 850, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, USA.
Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation, and Policy, Health Services Research, Greater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2025 Apr 14;25(1):540. doi: 10.1186/s12913-025-12712-x.
The COVID- 19 pandemic prompted rapid development of scarce resource allocation policies (SRAP) in case demand for critical health services eclipsed capacity. We sought to test whether a brief, educational video could improve alignment of participant values and preferences with the tenets of the University of California Health's SRAP in a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted during the pandemic.
An RCT of an educational video intervention embedded in a longitudinal web-based survey conducted from May to December 2020, analyzed in August 2024. The "explainer" video intervention was approximately 6 min long and provided an overview of the mechanics and ethical principles underpinning the UC Health SRAP, subtitled in six languages. California residents were randomized to view the intervention or not, stratified by age, sex, education, racial identity, and self-reported health care worker status. Non-California residents were assigned to the control group. 1,971 adult participants were enrolled at baseline, and 939 completed follow-up. 770 participants with matched baseline and follow-up responses were analyzed. Self-reported survey assessments of values regarding components of SRAP were scored as the percentage of agreement with the UC Health SRAP as written. Participants responded to items at baseline and follow-up (approximately 10 weeks after baseline), with randomization occurring between administrations.
After the intervention, overall agreement improved by a substantial margin of 5.2% (from 3.8% to 6.6%, P <.001) for the intervention group compared to the control group. Significant changes in agreement with SRAP logistics and health factors were also observed in the intervention group relative to the control, while no significant changes were noted for social factors. Differential intervention effects were observed for certain demographic subgroups.
A brief educational video effectively explains the complex ethical principles and mechanisms of the SRAP, as well as how to improve the alignment of participant values with the foundational principles of UC Health SRAP. This directly informs practice by providing a framework for educating individuals about the use of these policies during future situations that require crisis standards of care, which can, in turn, enhance agreement and buy-in from affected parties.
ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT04373135 (registered 4 May 2020).
2019年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行促使在关键医疗服务需求超过供应能力的情况下迅速制定稀缺资源分配政策(SRAP)。在对大流行期间进行的一项随机对照试验(RCT)的事后分析中,我们试图测试一段简短的教育视频是否能使参与者的价值观和偏好与加州大学健康系统的SRAP原则更加一致。
2020年5月至12月在一项基于网络的纵向调查中嵌入了一个教育视频干预的随机对照试验,于2024年8月进行分析。“解释性”视频干预时长约6分钟,概述了加州大学健康系统SRAP的机制和伦理原则,并配有六种语言的字幕。加利福尼亚州居民按年龄、性别、教育程度、种族身份和自我报告的医护人员身份分层,随机分为观看干预视频组或不观看组。非加利福尼亚州居民被分配到对照组。1971名成年参与者在基线时入组,939人完成随访。对770名基线和随访回答匹配的参与者进行了分析。对关于SRAP组成部分的价值观的自我报告调查评估,以与书面的加州大学健康系统SRAP的一致百分比进行评分。参与者在基线和随访时(基线后约10周)回答问题,两次调查之间进行随机分组。
干预后,与对照组相比,干预组的总体一致性大幅提高了5.2%(从3.8%提高到6.6%,P <0.001)。相对于对照组,干预组在与SRAP后勤和健康因素的一致性方面也观察到了显著变化,而社会因素方面未观察到显著变化。在某些人口亚组中观察到了不同的干预效果。
一段简短的教育视频有效地解释了SRAP复杂的伦理原则和机制,以及如何提高参与者的价值观与加州大学健康系统SRAP基本原则的一致性。这通过提供一个框架,为在未来需要危机护理标准的情况下教育个人如何使用这些政策提供了直接的实践指导,进而可以增强受影响各方的认同和支持。
ClinicalTrials.gov注册号NCT04373135(2020年5月4日注册)