Hospital Fire Safety PreparednessNCT07732959
Augmented Reality for Hospital Fire Safety
A study testing Augmented Reality Fire-Safety Education and Traditional Fire-Safety Education in people with Hospital Fire Safety Preparedness, run by Chou Yun Jyuan at 1 site in Taiwan.
Trial summary
This study evaluated the effectiveness of augmented reality-based hospital fire-safety education among hospitalized patients and accompanying caregivers. Hospital fires pose substantial risks to patient safety because of complex clinical environments, high reliance on electrical equipment, and the presence of patients… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 20 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Hospital Fire Safety Preparedness
- What is being tested?
- Augmented Reality Fire-Safety Education and Traditional Fire-Safety Education
- Type of treatment
- Pill or oral medicine, Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 153 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTaiwan
- Study dates
- 1 Sep 2022to 31 Dec 2022
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
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 20 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Hospitalized patients, family caregivers, or paid caregivers in the participating hospital wards
- Aged 20 years or older
- Able to communicate in Mandarin Chinese, Taiwanese, or Hakka
- Willing to participate in the study and provide written informed consent
Who cannot join
- Individuals with mobility limitations
- Individuals who did not have access to or were unable to use a mobile phone
- Individuals who were unwilling to participate in the study
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Effectiveness of Augmented Reality-Based Education on Public Knowledge, Attitudes, Behaviors, and Acceptance of Hospital Fire Safety
This study evaluated the effectiveness of augmented reality-based hospital fire-safety education among hospitalized patients and accompanying caregivers. Hospital fires pose substantial risks to patient safety because of complex clinical environments, high reliance on electrical equipment, and the presence of patients who may have difficulty evacuating during emergencies. Strengthening fire-safety preparedness among patients and caregivers is therefore an important component of hospital safety management.Participants were recruited from three hospital wards and assigned to either an augmented reality education group or a traditional education group using a sealed-envelope assignment method. The augmented reality group received fire-safety education through a hospital-developed web-based augmented reality platform, whereas the control group received standard hospital fire-safety education based on existing inpatient education protocols. Outcomes were assessed before and after the educational intervention using a structured questionnaire measuring fire-safety knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and acceptance of the educational method, including perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use.The purpose of this study was to determine whether augmented reality-based education was more effective and acceptable than traditional education in improving hospital fire-safety preparedness among hospitalized patients and caregivers.
- Conditions
- Hospital Fire Safety Preparedness
- Being tested
- Augmented Reality Fire-Safety Education, Traditional Fire-Safety Education
- Keywords
- augmented reality, fire safety education, patient safety, nursing intervention, technology acceptance model
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Augmented Reality Fire-Safety EducationBehavioural
Also called Augmented Reality Fire-Safety Education Group
A web-based augmented reality educational intervention designed to provide hospital fire-safety education to hospitalized patients and accompanying caregivers. Participants used a tablet or mobile device to complete interactive fire-safety learning activities. The intervention took approximately 10-15 minutes to complete.
Traditional Fire-Safety EducationBehavioural
Also called Traditional Fire-Safety Education Group
Standard hospital fire-safety education provided according to existing inpatient education procedures. The education included routine verbal instructions and written fire-safety information provided during hospitalization.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Augmented Reality Fire-Safety Education Group | Experimental | Participants in this group received hospital fire-safety education through a hospital-developed, web-based augmented reality platform. The intervention was delivered using a tablet or mobile device and included interactive fire-safety learning activities in the hospital setting. Receives: Behavioral: Augmented Reality Fire-Safety Education |
| Traditional Fire-Safety Education Group | Active comparator | Participants in this group received standard hospital fire-safety education according to existing inpatient education procedures. Receives: Behavioral: Traditional Fire-Safety Education |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change in Hospital Fire-Safety Knowledge Score
Hospital fire-safety knowledge was assessed using the 11-item knowledge section of a study-specific questionnaire developed by the research team and reviewed by experts. The section comprised true-or-false items, including reverse-coded items. Each correct response was assigned 1 point, and each incorrect response was assigned 0 points. Item scores were summed to calculate a total score ranging from 0 to 11, with higher scores indicating greater hospital fire-safety knowledge. The change in total score from immediately before to immediately after the intervention was compared between the augmented reality and traditional education groups.
Measured: Immediately before the intervention and immediately after completion of the assigned education session
Change in Hospital Fire-Safety Attitude Score
Hospital fire-safety attitudes were assessed using the eight-item attitude section of a study-specific questionnaire developed by the research team and reviewed by experts. Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1, never, to 5, always. Item scores were summed to calculate a total attitude score ranging from 8 to 40, with higher scores indicating more favorable hospital fire-safety attitudes and therefore a better outcome. The change in total score from immediately before to immediately after the intervention was compared between the augmented reality and traditional education groups.
Measured: Immediately before the intervention and immediately after completion of the assigned education session
Change in Hospital Fire-Safety Behavior Score
Hospital fire-safety behaviors were assessed using the four-item behavior section of a study-specific questionnaire developed by the research team and reviewed by experts. Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1, never, to 5, always. Item scores were summed to calculate a total behavior score ranging from 4 to 20, with higher scores indicating more appropriate hospital fire-safety behaviors and therefore a better outcome. The change in total score from immediately before to immediately after the intervention was compared between the augmented reality and traditional education groups.
Measured: Immediately before the intervention and immediately after completion of the assigned education session
Secondary outcomes (2)
Perceived Usefulness Score on the Technology Acceptance Model-Based Acceptance Questionnaire
Perceived usefulness was assessed using items 6-8 of an eight-item acceptance scale developed based on the Technology Acceptance Model. Each item was rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1, strongly disagree, to 5, strongly agree. Item scores were summed to calculate the total perceived usefulness score, ranging from 3 to 15, with higher scores indicating greater perceived usefulness of the augmented reality fire-safety education. This outcome was assessed only among participants assigned to the augmented reality fire-safety education group.
Measured: Immediately after completion of the augmented reality fire-safety education intervention
Perceived Ease-of-Use Score on the Technology Acceptance Model-Based Acceptance Questionnaire
Perceived ease of use was assessed using items 1-5 of the eight-item Technology Acceptance Model-Based Acceptance Questionnaire developed for this study. Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1, strongly disagree, to 5, strongly agree. Item scores were summed to calculate a total perceived ease-of-use score ranging from 5 to 25, with higher scores indicating greater perceived ease of use of the augmented reality fire-safety education and therefore a better outcome. This outcome was assessed only among participants assigned to the augmented reality fire-safety education group.
Measured: Immediately after completion of the augmented reality fire-safety education intervention.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted29 Jul 2026
- Study start1 Sep 2022
- Primary completion31 Dec 2022
- Study completion31 Dec 2022
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (16)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Hospital Fire Safety PreparednessStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- 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
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 153 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Chou Yun Jyuan
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, Chou Yun Jyuan, Buddhist Tzu Chi General Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07732959
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- IRB 110-230-B
- Status last verified
- Jul 2026
- First submitted
- 20 Jul 2026
- Last updated
- 29 Jul 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: The individual participant data will not be shared because the data contain participant-level questionnaire responses collected under institutional review board approval and informed consent conditions.
Publications
Barteit S, Lanfermann L, Barnighausen T, Neuhann F, Beiersmann C. Augmented, Mixed, and Virtual Reality-Based Head-Mounted Devices for Medical Education: Systematic Review. JMIR Serious Games. 2021 Jul 8;9(3):e29080. doi: 10.2196/29080.
PubMed 34255668Dhar P, Rocks T, Samarasinghe RM, Stephenson G, Smith C. Augmented reality in medical education: students' experiences and learning outcomes. Med Educ Online. 2021 Dec;26(1):1953953. doi: 10.1080/10872981.2021.1953953.
PubMed 34259122Bogomolova K, van der Ham IJM, Dankbaar MEW, van den Broek WW, Hovius SER, van der Hage JA, Hierck BP. The Effect of Stereoscopic Augmented Reality Visualization on Learning Anatomy and the Modifying Effect of Visual-Spatial Abilities: A Double-Center Randomized Controlled Trial. Anat Sci Educ. 2020 Sep;13(5):558-567. doi: 10.1002/ase.1941. Epub 2020 Jan 27.
PubMed 31887792Moro C, Birt J, Stromberga Z, Phelps C, Clark J, Glasziou P, Scott AM. Virtual and Augmented Reality Enhancements to Medical and Science Student Physiology and Anatomy Test Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Anat Sci Educ. 2021 May;14(3):368-376. doi: 10.1002/ase.2049. Epub 2021 Feb 26.
PubMed 33378557Tang KS, Cheng DL, Mi E, Greenberg PB. Augmented reality in medical education: a systematic review. Can Med Educ J. 2020 Mar 16;11(1):e81-e96. doi: 10.36834/cmej.61705. eCollection 2020 Mar.
PubMed 32215146Ulfa Y, Igarashi Y, Takahata K, Shishido E, Horiuchi S. A comparison of team-based learning and lecture-based learning on clinical reasoning and classroom engagement: a cluster randomized controlled trial. BMC Med Educ. 2021 Aug 21;21(1):444. doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02881-8.
PubMed 34419030Urlings J, Sezer S, Ter Laan M, Bartels R, Maal T, Boogaarts J, Henssen D. The role and effectiveness of augmented reality in patient education: A systematic review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns. 2022 Jul;105(7):1917-1927. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2022.03.005. Epub 2022 Mar 10.
PubMed 35341611Rodriguez-Abad C, Fernandez-de-la-Iglesia JD, Martinez-Santos AE, Rodriguez-Gonzalez R. A Systematic Review of Augmented Reality in Health Sciences: A Guide to Decision-Making in Higher Education. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Apr 17;18(8):4262. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18084262.
PubMed 33920528Knowles MS, Holton EF III, Swanson RA. The adult learner: the definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. 6th ed. Burlington, MA: Elsevier; 2005.
Gerup J, Soerensen CB, Dieckmann P. Augmented reality and mixed reality for healthcare education beyond surgery: an integrative review. Int J Med Educ. 2020 Jan 18;11:1-18. doi: 10.5116/ijme.5e01.eb1a.
PubMed 31955150Lee M, Lee NJ, Seo HJ, Jang H, Kim SM. Interventions to Engage Patients and Families in Patient Safety: A Systematic Review. West J Nurs Res. 2021 Oct;43(10):972-983. doi: 10.1177/0193945920980770. Epub 2020 Dec 22.
PubMed 33353509Abdi Z, Ravaghi H, Sarkhosh S, Nafar H, Khani S, Letaief M. Patient and family engagement in patient safety in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024 Jun 25;24(1):765. doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-11198-3.
PubMed 38918854National Fire Agency, Ministry of the Interior. Statistics on the causes and losses of nationwide fires from January to September 2021. Taipei, Taiwan: National Fire Agency, Ministry of the Interior; 2021. Available from: https://data.gov.tw/dataset/8562. Accessed July 5, 2022.
Wahyuni I, Ismail N, Izziah I. Hospital fire safety improvement effort: study case Rumah Sakit Ibu dan Anak, Banda Aceh. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 2020;933(1):012009. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/933/1/012009.
National Fire Protection Association. Structure fires in health care facilities. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association; 2017.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 29 Jul 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effectiveness of Augmented Reality-Based Education on Public Knowledge, Attitudes, Behaviors, and Acceptance of Hospital Fire Safety
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07732959
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- IRB 110-230-B
- Conditions
- Hospital Fire Safety Preparedness
- Keywords
- augmented reality, fire safety education, patient safety, nursing intervention, technology acceptance model
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 153 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Chou Yun JyuanUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Sep 2022 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Dec 2022 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Dec 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 29 Jul 2026 (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.
This study evaluated the effectiveness of augmented reality-based hospital fire-safety education among hospitalized patients and accompanying caregivers. Hospital fires pose substantial risks to patient safety because of complex clinical environments, high reliance on electrical equipment, and the presence of patients who may have difficulty evacuating during emergencies. Strengthening fire-safety preparedness among patients and caregivers is therefore an important component of hospital safety management.Participants were recruited from three hospital wards and assigned to either an augmented reality education group or a traditional education group using a sealed-envelope assignment method. The augmented reality group received fire-safety education through a hospital-developed web-based augmented reality platform, whereas the control group received standard hospital fire-safety education based on existing inpatient education protocols. Outcomes were assessed before and after the educational intervention using a structured questionnaire measuring fire-safety knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and acceptance of the educational method, including perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use.The purpose of this study was to determine whether augmented reality-based education was more effective and acceptable than traditional education in improving hospital fire-safety preparedness among hospitalized patients and caregivers.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Augmented Reality Fire-Safety Education Group | Experimental | Behavioral: Augmented Reality Fire-Safety EducationParticipants in this group received hospital fire-safety education through a hospital-developed, web-based augmented reality platform. The intervention was delivered using a tablet or mobile device and included interactive fire-safety learning activities in the hospital setting. |
| Traditional Fire-Safety Education Group | Active comparator | Behavioral: Traditional Fire-Safety EducationParticipants in this group received standard hospital fire-safety education according to existing inpatient education procedures. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 20 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Hospitalized patients, family caregivers, or paid caregivers in the participating hospital wards
- Aged 20 years or older
- Able to communicate in Mandarin Chinese, Taiwanese, or Hakka
- Willing to participate in the study and provide written informed consent
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Individuals with mobility limitations
- Individuals who did not have access to or were unable to use a mobile phone
- Individuals who were unwilling to participate in the study
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Augmented Reality Fire-Safety EducationAlso: Augmented Reality Fire-Safety Education GroupA web-based augmented reality educational intervention designed to provide hospital fire-safety education to hospitalized patients and accompanying caregivers. Participants used a tablet or mobile device to complete interactive fire-safety learning activities. The intervention took approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. | Behavioural | Augmented Reality Fire-Safety Education Group |
| Traditional Fire-Safety EducationAlso: Traditional Fire-Safety Education GroupStandard hospital fire-safety education provided according to existing inpatient education procedures. The education included routine verbal instructions and written fire-safety information provided during hospitalization. | Behavioural | Traditional Fire-Safety Education Group |
Primary outcome
Change in Hospital Fire-Safety Knowledge Score
Time frame: Immediately before the intervention and immediately after completion of the assigned education session
Hospital fire-safety knowledge was assessed using the 11-item knowledge section of a study-specific questionnaire developed by the research team and reviewed by experts. The section comprised true-or-false items, including reverse-coded items. Each correct response was assigned 1 point, and each incorrect response was assigned 0 points. Item scores were summed to calculate a total score ranging from 0 to 11, with higher scores indicating greater hospital fire-safety knowledge. The change in total score from immediately before to immediately after the intervention was compared between the augmented reality and traditional education groups.
Change in Hospital Fire-Safety Attitude Score
Time frame: Immediately before the intervention and immediately after completion of the assigned education session
Hospital fire-safety attitudes were assessed using the eight-item attitude section of a study-specific questionnaire developed by the research team and reviewed by experts. Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1, never, to 5, always. Item scores were summed to calculate a total attitude score ranging from 8 to 40, with higher scores indicating more favorable hospital fire-safety attitudes and therefore a better outcome. The change in total score from immediately before to immediately after the intervention was compared between the augmented reality and traditional education groups.
Change in Hospital Fire-Safety Behavior Score
Time frame: Immediately before the intervention and immediately after completion of the assigned education session
Hospital fire-safety behaviors were assessed using the four-item behavior section of a study-specific questionnaire developed by the research team and reviewed by experts. Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1, never, to 5, always. Item scores were summed to calculate a total behavior score ranging from 4 to 20, with higher scores indicating more appropriate hospital fire-safety behaviors and therefore a better outcome. The change in total score from immediately before to immediately after the intervention was compared between the augmented reality and traditional education groups.
2 secondary outcomes
Perceived Usefulness Score on the Technology Acceptance Model-Based Acceptance Questionnaire
Time frame: Immediately after completion of the augmented reality fire-safety education intervention
Perceived Ease-of-Use Score on the Technology Acceptance Model-Based Acceptance Questionnaire
Time frame: Immediately after completion of the augmented reality fire-safety education intervention.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 29 Jul 2026.
- Background: PubMed 34255668Barteit S, Lanfermann L, Barnighausen T, Neuhann F, Beiersmann C. Augmented, Mixed, and Virtual Reality-Based Head-Mounted Devices for Medical Education: Systematic Review. JMIR Serious Games. 2021 Jul 8;9(3):e29080. doi: 10.2196/29080.
- Background: PubMed 34259122Dhar P, Rocks T, Samarasinghe RM, Stephenson G, Smith C. Augmented reality in medical education: students' experiences and learning outcomes. Med Educ Online. 2021 Dec;26(1):1953953. doi: 10.1080/10872981.2021.1953953.
- Background: PubMed 31887792Bogomolova K, van der Ham IJM, Dankbaar MEW, van den Broek WW, Hovius SER, van der Hage JA, Hierck BP. The Effect of Stereoscopic Augmented Reality Visualization on Learning Anatomy and the Modifying Effect of Visual-Spatial Abilities: A Double-Center Randomized Controlled Trial. Anat Sci Educ. 2020 Sep;13(5):558-567. doi: 10.1002/ase.1941. Epub 2020 Jan 27.
- Background: PubMed 33378557Moro C, Birt J, Stromberga Z, Phelps C, Clark J, Glasziou P, Scott AM. Virtual and Augmented Reality Enhancements to Medical and Science Student Physiology and Anatomy Test Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Anat Sci Educ. 2021 May;14(3):368-376. doi: 10.1002/ase.2049. Epub 2021 Feb 26.
- Background: PubMed 32215146Tang KS, Cheng DL, Mi E, Greenberg PB. Augmented reality in medical education: a systematic review. Can Med Educ J. 2020 Mar 16;11(1):e81-e96. doi: 10.36834/cmej.61705. eCollection 2020 Mar.
- Background: PubMed 34419030Ulfa Y, Igarashi Y, Takahata K, Shishido E, Horiuchi S. A comparison of team-based learning and lecture-based learning on clinical reasoning and classroom engagement: a cluster randomized controlled trial. BMC Med Educ. 2021 Aug 21;21(1):444. doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02881-8.
- Background: PubMed 35341611Urlings J, Sezer S, Ter Laan M, Bartels R, Maal T, Boogaarts J, Henssen D. The role and effectiveness of augmented reality in patient education: A systematic review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns. 2022 Jul;105(7):1917-1927. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2022.03.005. Epub 2022 Mar 10.
- Background: PubMed 33920528Rodriguez-Abad C, Fernandez-de-la-Iglesia JD, Martinez-Santos AE, Rodriguez-Gonzalez R. A Systematic Review of Augmented Reality in Health Sciences: A Guide to Decision-Making in Higher Education. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Apr 17;18(8):4262. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18084262.
- BackgroundKnowles MS, Holton EF III, Swanson RA. The adult learner: the definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. 6th ed. Burlington, MA: Elsevier; 2005.
- Results publication: PubMed 31955150Gerup J, Soerensen CB, Dieckmann P. Augmented reality and mixed reality for healthcare education beyond surgery: an integrative review. Int J Med Educ. 2020 Jan 18;11:1-18. doi: 10.5116/ijme.5e01.eb1a.
- Results publication: PubMed 33353509Lee M, Lee NJ, Seo HJ, Jang H, Kim SM. Interventions to Engage Patients and Families in Patient Safety: A Systematic Review. West J Nurs Res. 2021 Oct;43(10):972-983. doi: 10.1177/0193945920980770. Epub 2020 Dec 22.
- Results publication: PubMed 38918854Abdi Z, Ravaghi H, Sarkhosh S, Nafar H, Khani S, Letaief M. Patient and family engagement in patient safety in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2024 Jun 25;24(1):765. doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-11198-3.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. The individual participant data will not be shared because the data contain participant-level questionnaire responses collected under institutional review board approval and informed consent conditions.
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. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Augmented Reality Fire-Safety Education and Traditional Fire-Safety Education in people with Hospital Fire Safety Preparedness, run by Chou Yun Jyuan at 1 site in Taiwan.
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 4 inclusion and 3 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: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 29 Jul 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Taiwan. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
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?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Change in Hospital Fire-Safety Knowledge Score (time frame: Immediately before the intervention and immediately after completion of the assigned education session). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07732959, which also lists 16 linked publications.
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 29 Jul 2026.