Search

Aim: The aim of this prospective meta‐analysis was to synthesize the results of three cluster‐randomized trials of an intervention designed to teach lower‐secondary school students (age 14–16) to think critically about health choices. Methods: We conducted the trials in Kenya, Rwanda, and Uganda. The intervention included a 2‐ to 3‐day teacher training workshop, digital resources, and ten 40‐min lessons. The lessons focused on nine key concepts. We did not intervene in control schools. The primary outcome was a passing score on a test (≥9 of 18 multiple‐choice questions answered correctly). We performed random effects meta‐analyses to estimate the overall adjusted odds ratios. Secondary outcomes included effects of the intervention on teachers. Results: Altogether, 244 schools (11,344 students) took part in the three trials. The overall adjusted odds ratio was 5.5 (95% CI: 3.0–10.2; p < 0.0001) in favor of the intervention (high certainty evidence). This corresponds to 33% (95% CI: 25–40%) more students in the intervention schools passing the test. Overall, 3397 (58%) of 5846 students in intervention schools had a passing score. The overall adjusted odds ratio for teachers was 13.7(95% CI: 4.6–40.4; p < 0.0001), corresponding to 32% (95% CI: 6%–57%) more teachers in the intervention schools passing the test (moderate certainty evidence). Overall, 118 (97%) of 122 teachers in intervention schools had a passing score. Conclusions: The intervention led to a large improvement in the ability of students and teachers to think critically about health choices, but 42% of students in the intervention schools did not achieve a passing score. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The aim was to evaluate the effect of the Informed Health Choices (IHC) educational intervention on secondary students' ability to assess health‐related claims and make informed choices. Methods: In a cluster‐randomized trial, we randomized 80 secondary schools (students aged 13–17 years) in Uganda to the intervention or control (usual curriculum). The intervention included a 2‐day teacher training workshop, 10 lessons accessed online by teachers and delivered in one school term. The lesson plans were developed for classrooms equipped with a blackboard or a blackboard and projector. The lessons addressed nine prioritized concepts. We used two multiple‐choice questions for each concept to evaluate the students' ability to assess claims and make informed choices. The primary outcome was the proportion of students with a passing score (≥9 of 18 questions answered correctly). Results: Eighty schools consented and were randomly allocated. A total of 2477 students in the 40 intervention schools and 2376 students in the 40 control schools participated in this trial. In the intervention schools, 1364 (55%) of students that completed the test had a passing score compared with 586 (25%) of students in the control schools (adjusted difference 33%, 95% CI 26%–39%). Conclusions: The IHC secondary school intervention improved students' ability to think critically and make informed choices. Well‐designed digital resources may improve access to educational material, even in schools without computers or other information and communication technology (ICT). This could facilitate scaling‐up use of the resources and help to address inequities associated with limited ICT access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much health communication during the COVID-19 pandemic has been designed to persuade people more than to inform them. For example, messages like "masks save lives" are intended to compel people to wear face masks, not to enable them to make an informed decision about whether to wear a face mask or to understand the justification for a mask mandate. Both persuading people and informing them are reasonable goals for health communication. However, those goals can sometimes be in conflict. In this article, we discuss potential conflicts between seeking to persuade or to inform people, the use of spin to persuade people, the ethics of persuasion, and implications for health communication in the context of the pandemic and generally. Decisions to persuade people rather than enable them to make an informed choice may be justified, but the basis for those decisions should be transparent and the evidence should not be distorted. We suggest nine principles to guide decisions by health authorities about whether to try to persuade people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As part of a five year plan (2019–2023), the Informed Health Choices Project, is developing and evaluating resources for helping secondary school students learn to think critically about health claims and choices. We will bring together key stakeholders; such as secondary school teachers and students, our main target for the IHC secondary school resources, school administrators, policy makers, curriculum development specialists and parents, to enable us gain insight about the context. Objectives: To ensure that stakeholders are effectively and appropriately engaged in the design, evaluation and dissemination of the learning resources. To evaluate the extent to which stakeholders were successfully engaged. Methods: Using a multi-stage stratified sampling method, we will identify a representative sample of secondary schools with varied characteristics that might modify the effects of the learning resources such as, the school location (rural, semi-urban or urban), ownership (private, public) and ICT facilities (under resourced, highly resourced). A sample of schools will be randomly selected from the schools in each stratum. We will aim to recruit a diverse sample of students and secondary school teachers from those schools. Other stakeholders will be purposively selected to ensure a diverse range of experience and expertise. Results: Together with the teacher and student networks and the advisory panels, we will establish measurable success criteria that reflect the objectives of engaging stakeholders at the start of the project and evaluate the extent to which those criteria were met at the end of the project. Conclusion: We aim for an increase in research uptake, improve quality and appropriateness of research results, accountability and social justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People of all ages are flooded with health claims about treatment effects (benefits and harms of treatments). Many of these are not reliable, and many people lack skills to assess their reliability. Primary school is the ideal time to begin to teach these skills, to lay a foundation for continued learning and enable children to make well-informed health choices, as they grow older. However, these skills are rarely being taught and yet there are no rigorously developed and evaluated resources for teaching these skills. Objectives: To develop the Informed Health Choices (IHC) resources (for learning and teaching people to assess claims about the effects of treatments) for primary school children and teachers. Methods: We prototyped, piloted, and user-tested resources in four settings that included Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, and Norway. We employed a user-centred approach to designing IHC resources which entailed multiple iterative cycles of development (determining content scope, generating ideas, prototyping, testing, analysing and refining) based on continuous close collaboration with teachers and children. Results: We identified 24 Key Concepts that are important for children to learn. We developed a comic book and a separate exercise book to introduce and explain the Key Concepts to the children, combining lessons with exercises and classroom activities. We developed a teachers' guide to supplement the resources for children. Conclusion: By employing a user-centred approach to designing resources to teach primary children to think critically about treatment claims and choices, we developed learning resources that end users experienced as useful, easy to use and well-suited to use in diverse classroom settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health service and systems researchers have developed knowledge translation strategies to facilitate the use of reliable evidence for policy, including rapid response briefs as timely and responsive tools supporting decision making. However, little is known about users' experience with these newer formats for presenting evidence. We sought to explore Ugandan policymakers' experience with rapid response briefs in order to develop a format acceptable for policymakers.Methods: We used existing research regarding evidence formats for policymakers to inform the initial version of rapid response brief format. We conducted user testing with healthcare policymakers at various levels of decision making in Uganda, employing a concurrent think-aloud method, collecting data on elements including usability, usefulness, understandability, desirability, credibility and value of the document. We modified the rapid response briefs format based on the results of the user testing and sought feedback on the new format.Results: The participants generally found the format of the rapid response briefs usable, credible, desirable and of value. Participants expressed frustrations regarding several aspects of the document, including the absence of recommendations, lack of clarity about the type of document and its potential uses (especially for first time users), and a crowded front page. Participants offered conflicting feedback on preferred length of the briefs and use and placement of partner logos. Users had divided preferences for the older and newer formats.Conclusion: Although the rapid response briefs were generally found to be of value, there are major and minor frustrations impeding an optimal user experience. Areas requiring further research include how to address policymakers' expectations of recommendations in these briefs and their optimal length. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence-based decision making relies on easy access to trustworthy research results. The Cochrane Library is a key source of evidence about the effect of interventions and aims to "promote the accessibility of systematic reviews to anyone wanting to make a decision about health care". We explored how health professionals found, used and experienced The Library, looking at facets of user experience including findability, usability, usefulness, credibility, desirability and value.Methods: We carried out 32 one-hour usability tests on participants from Norway and the UK. Participants both browsed freely and attempted to perform individually tailored tasks while "thinking aloud". Sessions were recorded and viewed in real time by researchers. Transcriptions and videos were reviewed by one researcher and one designer. Findings reported here reflect issues receiving a high degree of saturation and that we judge to be critical to the user experience of evidence-based web sites, based on principles for usability heuristics, web guidelines and evidence-based practice.Results: Participants had much difficulty locating both the site and its contents. Non-native English speakers were at an extra disadvantage when retrieving relevant documents despite high levels of English-language skills. Many participants displayed feelings of ineptitude, alienation and frustration. Some made serious mistakes in correctly distinguishing between different information types, for instance reviews, review protocols, and individual studies. Although most expressed a high regard for the site's credibility, some later displayed a mistrust of the independence of the information. Others were overconfident, thinking everything on The Cochrane Library site shared the same level of quality approval.Conclusion: Paradoxically, The Cochrane Library, established to support easy access to research evidence, has its own problems of accessibility. Health professionals' experiences of this and other evidence-based online resources can be improved by applying existing principles for web usability, prioritizing the development of simple search functionality, emitting "researcher" jargon, consistent marking of site ownership, and clear signposting of different document types and different content quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework is a tool to help groups make systematic, transparent, and adaptable healthcare recommendations or decisions. Through a detailed description of the multi‐stakeholder development of this intervention, Sarah E. Rosenbaum and co‐workers present in article number 1700081 important user and stakeholder perspectives relevant for anyone seeking to use or adapt the EtD framework, or who plans to develop similar approaches for supporting groups making evidence‐informed decisions in the context of healthcare or other domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence‐informed health care decisions and recommendations need to be made systematically and transparently. Mediating technology can help manage boundaries between groups making decisions and target audiences, enhancing salience, credibility, and legitimacy for all. This article describes the development of the Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework and an interactive tool to create and use frameworks (iEtD) to support communication in decision making. Methods: Using a human‐centered design approach, we created prototypes employing a broad range of methods to iteratively develop EtD framework content and iEtD tool functionality. Results: We developed tailored EtD frameworks for making evidence‐informed decisions and recommendations about clinical practice interventions, diagnostic and screening tests, coverage, and health system and public health options. The iEtD tool provides functionality for preparing frameworks, using them in group discussions, and publishing output for implementation or adaption. EtD and iEtD are intuitive and useful for producers and users of frameworks, and flexible for use across different types of topics, decisions, and organizations. They bring valued structure to panel discussions and transparency to published output. Conclusion: EtD and iEtD can resolve some of the challenges inherent in multicriteria, multistakeholder decision systems. They are freely available online for all to use at https://ietd.epistemonikos.org/ and https://gradepro.org. The purpose of Evidence to Decision frameworks is to help groups make systematic, transparent, and adaptable health care recommendations or decisions. This article describes the development of the frameworks and digital tool, revealing key stakeholder perspectives that are relevant for anyone seeking to use the framework, the tool, or develop similar approaches for decisions in other domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]