Health BehaviorPHEWNCT05686889
Post-Hoc Enthusiasm and Wariness
A study testing Patient self-report in people with Health Behavior, run by Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre.
Trial summary
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. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Health Behavior
- What is being tested?
- Patient self-report
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 100 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 1 May 2023to 1 Sep 2028
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Community pharmacist
Who cannot join
- Outside Ontario
Trial locations and contacts
No sites are listed yet. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
About this study
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.
Read the detailed description
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).
- Conditions
- Health Behavior
- Being tested
- Patient self-report
- Medical subject headings
- Health Behavior
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Patient self-reportOther
Simulated patient following structured script
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Success | Experimental | Symptomatic improvement present Receives: Other: Patient self-report |
| Failure | Experimental | Symptomatic improvement absent Receives: Other: Patient self-report |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Response variable in each survey is a binary recommendation whether to continue the vitamin supplement or discontinue the vitamin supplement
Health provider clinical recommendation
Measured: Short-term (less than 5 minutes)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted17 Jan 2023
- Study start1 May 2023 (estimated)
- Primary completion1 Sep 2023 (estimated)
- Study completion1 Sep 2028 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Health BehaviorStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Sunnybrook Health Sciences CentreThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Care provider
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Dr. Don Redelmeier, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
- Investigators
- Donald A Redelmeier, MD, MSc, Principal investigator, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05686889
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 5692
- Acronym
- PHEW
- Status last verified
- Jan 2023
- First submitted
- 7 Jan 2023
- Last updated
- 17 Jan 2023
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 17 Jan 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Post-Hoc Enthusiasm and Wariness
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05686889
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- PHEW / 5692
- Conditions
- Health Behavior
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Not yet recruiting
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences CentreUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 May 2023 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 1 Sep 2023 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 1 Sep 2028 (estimated)
- First posted
- 17 Jan 2023 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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.
Detailed description
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).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, care provider)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Success | Experimental | Other: Patient self-reportSymptomatic improvement present |
| Failure | Experimental | Other: Patient self-reportSymptomatic improvement absent |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Community pharmacist
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Outside Ontario
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Patient self-reportSimulated patient following structured script | Other | Failure, Success |
Primary outcome
Response variable in each survey is a binary recommendation whether to continue the vitamin supplement or discontinue the vitamin supplement
Time frame: Short-term (less than 5 minutes)
Health provider clinical recommendation
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 17 Jan 2023.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Health Behavior
Recruiting
Communicating About Nicotine Reduction in Cigarettes
Tobacco Products, Smoking Behavior
Not yet recruiting
A Mobile Informatics Solution to Assist Caregivers in Care Coordination and Monitoring Social Engagement
Memory Disorders, Mild Cognitive Impairment
Recruiting
Our Voices Matter: Intervention for Depression in Youth
Depressive Symptoms, Allostatic Load
Not yet recruitingObservational study
A Natural History of Cardiometabolic Disease Among US Bhutanese: Developing the Cross-Sectional Bhutanese Community of Central Ohio Health Study to Understand Acculturation as Synergizing Socioenvironmental and Biobehavioral Risk Factors Propagating ...
Cardiometabolic Risk Factors, Mental Health
Active, not recruiting
Online Prehabilitation for Patients Awaiting Liver Transplantation
Cirrhosis, Liver, Liver Transplant Surgery
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Donald A Redelmeier, MD, MSc principal investigator
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Patient self-report in people with Health Behavior, run by Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: opening soon, as of the sponsor's last update on 17 Jan 2023. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Donald A Redelmeier, MD, MSc (4164806999, dar@ices.on.ca), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Response variable in each survey is a binary recommendation whether to continue the vitamin supplement or discontinue the vitamin supplement (time frame: Short-term (less than 5 minutes)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 17 Jan 2023.