Bolstering agreement with scarce resource allocation policy using education: a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

Buhr RG, Huang CX, Romero R, Wisk LE. Bolstering agreement with scarce resource allocation policy using education: a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial. BMC health services research. 2025 Apr 14; 25(1):540, DOI: 10.1186/s12913-025-12712-x.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT04373135 (registered 4 May 2020).