Objective: To recommend how physicians can best respond to families whose hopes for a miracle via divine intervention influence their medical decisions, like, for example, making them not want to withdraw ventilatory support in cases of poor neurologic prognosis because they are still hoping for God to intervene. Methods: Auto-ethnographic analysis of chaplaincy experience in this clinical context yields a nuanced 90-second, point-of-care spiritual intervention physicians can use to address the religious aspect of families who base medical decisions on their hopes for a miracle via divine intervention. Explanation of how spiritual intervention dovetails with existing physician communication protocol for responding to families hoping for a miracle. Results: Spiritual intervention for religious aspect of miracle-hoping families is integrated into existing physician communication protocol for responding to families hoping for a miracle with recommendations for utilization of existing communication technology when necessary. Conclusion: Properly addressing the religious dimension of families hoping for a miracle may be helpful for physicians interested in decreasing their own stress levels, improving outcomes for this clinical context, and ensuring that unintentional discrimination does not perpetuate racial disparities in end-of-life care.

The aim of this document is to provide practical guidance on the choice of target difference used in the sample size calculation of a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Guidance is provided with a definitive trial, one that seeks to provide a useful answer, in mind and not those of a more exploratory nature. The term “target difference” is taken throughout to refer to the difference that is used in the sample size calculation (the one that the study formally “targets”). Please see the glossary for definitions and clarification with regards other relevant concepts. In order to address the specification of the target difference, it is appropriate, and to some degree necessary, to touch on related statistical aspects of conducting a sample size calculation. Generally the discussion of other aspects and more technical details is kept to a minimum, with more technical aspects covered in the appendices and referencing of relevant sources provided for further reading.The main body of this guidance assumes a standard RCT design is used; formally, this can be described as a two-arm parallel-group superiority trial. Most RCTs test for superiority of the interventions, that is, whether or not one of the interventions is superior to the other (See Box 1 for a formal definition of superiority, and of the two most common alternative approaches). Some common alternative trial designs are considered in Appendix 3. Additionally, it is assumed in the main body of the text that the conventional (Neyman-Pearson) approach to the sample size calculation of an RCT is being used. Other approaches (Bayesian, precision and value of information) are briefly considered in Appendix 2 with reference to the specification of the target difference.

Philip Morris International (PMI) has developed the Population Health Impact Model (PHIM) to quantify, in the absence of epidemiological data, the effects of marketing a candidate modified risk tobacco product (cMRTP) on the public health of a whole population. Various simulations were performed to understand the harm reduction impact on the U.S. population over a 20-year period under various scenarios. The overall reduction in smoking attributable deaths (SAD) over the 20-year period was estimated as 934,947 if smoking completely went away and between 516,944 and 780,433 if cMRTP use completely replaces smoking. The reduction in SADs was estimated as 172,458 for the World Health Organization (WHO) 2025 Target and between 70,274 and 90,155 for the gradual cMRTP uptake. Combining the scenarios (WHO 2025 Target and cMRTP uptake), the reductions were between 256,453 and 268,796, depending on the cMRTP effective dose. These results show how a cMRTP can reduce overall population harm additionally to existing tobacco control efforts.