x

Please fill out this short user survey of only 3 questions in order to help us improve the site. We appreciate your feedback!
Priming religiosity in healthcare workers
Last registered on March 26, 2021

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
Priming religiosity in healthcare workers
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0007419
Initial registration date
March 26, 2021
Last updated
March 26, 2021 10:49 AM EDT
Location(s)
Primary Investigator
Affiliation
University of Milan
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
University of Verona
Additional Trial Information
Status
Completed
Start date
2020-06-15
End date
2020-08-31
Secondary IDs
Abstract
To evaluate the effectiveness of coping mechanisms on reducing stress when dealing with traumatic events lived in the past, we run a survey with a religious priming to Italian healthcare workers. Isolating the effects of religiosity on health presents notable empirical challenges: in some context like the US, religious people are generally wealthier, enjoy higher levels of education, and are in more stable marriages. All these characteristics are expected to positively affect individual (objective or self-assessed) physical and mental health. To overcome these empirical challenges, we ran an experiment through an online survey that was administered to healthcare workers in Italy between June 15th and August 31st, 2020, while the pressure of the first wave of the pandemic was fading away. The experiment directly manipulates the salience of individual religiosity through implicit priming. Hence, our original survey included two versions of the same 50-item questionnaire, one with a religious priming (i.e., unscrambling statements including ``sacred'' words) and one with standard neutral questions. Participants were randomly assigned to one of these two versions through a random redirect tool compatible with the Google Forms platform, which was used to design the survey.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Bertoli, Paola and Veronica Grembi. 2021. "Priming religiosity in healthcare workers." AEA RCT Registry. March 26. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.7419-1.0.
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
Intervention Start Date
2020-06-15
Intervention End Date
2020-08-31
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
Self assessed mental distress, which is a discrete variable ranging from 0 (i.e., no severe mental distress) to 4 (i.e., severe mental distress). This index is the linear sum of the 4 dummies Depression, Anxiety, Fear, and Sleeping problems, which are considered the main dimensions of poor mental health. For each of these dimensions, the corresponding dummy tells us if the respondent experienced that specific feeling (e.g., feeling depressed) very often or always, between the beginning of the COVID-19 first wave and June 15th, 2020.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Concerns is a secondary outcome, and it is a discrete variable ranging from 0 (i.e., no severe concerns) to 7 (i.e., severe concerns), summing 7 dummies: Stress in the workplace, Personal health, Relatives health, Couple problems, Nobody to talk, Financial problems, and Family problems. For each type of concern, a related dummy captures whether that specific situation was a cause of very frequent or constant concern for the respondent from the beginning of the pandemic to June 15th.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
The survey included two versions of the same questionnaire. One version of the survey incorporated religious priming, whereas the other version had neutral priming. During the first week of the survey -- between June 15th and June 22nd -- we ran a pilot with about a 2% share (i.e., 5,000 contacts, randomly selected) of the full sample to check whether the invitation email and the length and structure of the survey were sufficiently comprehensible and effective for collecting valid responses. No particular concerns arose during the pilot; therefore, starting from June 22nd, the survey was emailed to the full sample.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
By computer, using random redirect tool compatible with the Google Forms platform
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
20 regions
Sample size: planned number of observations
At least 2,000 physicians and 4,000 nurses
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
At least 1,000 physicians and 2,000 nurses
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Post-Trial
Post Trial Information
Study Withdrawal
Intervention
Is the intervention completed?
No
Is data collection complete?
Data Publication
Data Publication
Is public data available?
No
Program Files
Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials
Relevant Paper(s)
REPORTS & OTHER MATERIALS