Teaching Australian high school students to think critically about health claims: a cluster randomized trial.

Making informed health decisions requires knowledge and skills in appraising health claims, and teaching adolescents these skills may prepare them for future decision-making. This cluster randomized trial evaluated the effectiveness of an educational intervention on students' ability to identify and appraise health claims. Nine Australian high schools (4 control and 5 intervention) were recruited, comprising 974 students (382 control and 592 intervention) in Grades 7-10. Intervention impact was evaluated through baseline and follow-up evaluation. Follow-up mean scores on questions (maximum score of 25) from the Claim Evaluation Tools database (primary outcome) showed minimal between-group difference (intervention versus control: 14.4 versus 13.6; difference 0.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.6 to 3.1; P = 0.52). Change scores were only slightly higher in the intervention group (difference 1.2 [95% CI -0.7 to 3.1; P = 0.21]). Between-group differences for secondary outcomes were also minimal. Most intervention group students 'trusted' and 'liked' the programme and found the content 'easy' and 'helpful'. Most teacher feedback was positive, some noting challenges of covering content in allocated time and maintaining student engagement. It is unlikely that the assessed educational intervention had a large effect. Future research priorities are suggested.

[Better Reporting of Interventions: Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) Checklist and Guide]. / Die TIDieR Checkliste und Anleitung - ein Instrument für eine verbesserte Interventionsbeschreibung und Replikation.

Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face-to-face panel meeting. The resultant 12-item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who intervened, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actually carried out)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with a detailed explanation of each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure the accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.

A systematic review of the public's knowledge and beliefs about antibiotic resistance.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to systematically review quantitative and qualitative studies on the public's knowledge and beliefs about antibiotic resistance. METHODS: We searched four databases to July 2014, with no language or study design restrictions. Two reviewers independently extracted data. We calculated the median (IQR) of the proportion of participants who agreed with each statement and synthesized qualitative data by identifying emergent themes. RESULTS: Of 3537 articles screened, 54 studies (41 quantitative, 3 mixed methods and 10 qualitative) were included (55 225 participants). Most studied adults (50; 93% studies) and were conducted in Europe (23; 43%), Asia (14; 26%) or North America (12; 22%). Some participants [median 70% (IQR 50%-84%); n = 8 studies] had heard of antibiotic resistance, but most [median 88% (IQR 86%-89%); n = 2 studies] believed it referred to changes in the human body. Many believed excessive antibiotic use [median 70% (IQR 59%-77%); n = 11 studies] and not completing antibiotic courses [median 62% (IQR 47%-77%); n = 8 studies] caused resistance. Most participants nominated reducing antibiotic use [median 74% (IQR 72%-85%); n = 4 studies] and discussing antibiotic resistance with their clinician (84%, n = 1 study) as strategies to reduce resistance. Qualitative data supported these findings and additionally identified that: participants believed they were at low risk from antibiotic resistance participants; largely attributed its development to the actions of others; and strategies to minimize resistance should be primarily aimed at clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: The public have an incomplete understanding of antibiotic resistance and misperceptions about it and its causes and do not believe they contribute to its development. These data can be used to inform interventions to change the public's beliefs about how they can contribute to tackling this global issue.

Not in my backyard: a systematic review of clinicians' knowledge and beliefs about antibiotic resistance.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review clinicians' knowledge and beliefs about the importance and causes of antibiotic resistance, and strategies to reduce resistance. METHODS: Four databases were searched (until July 2014), without restrictions on language, setting or study design. Fixed responses (from surveys) were grouped into categories. The proportion of participants who agreed with each category was expressed as median, percentage and IQR. Qualitative data were coded into emergent themes. Quantitative categories and qualitative themes were grouped into four overarching categories that emerged from the data. RESULTS: There were 57 included studies (38 quantitative, 14 qualitative, 5 mixed methods) of 11593 clinicians. Most clinicians (69%, IQR 63%-72%, n=5 studies) had heard of antibiotic resistance and 98% (IQR 93%-99%, n=5 studies) believed it was serious. The proportion who believed it was a problem for their practice (67%, IQR 65%-74%, n=13 studies) was smaller than the proportion who believed it was a problem globally (89%, IQR 85%-97%, n=5 studies) or nationally (92%, IQR 88%-95%, n=21 studies). Most believed excessive antibiotic use (97%, IQR 91%-98%, n=12 studies) and patient non-adherence (90%, IQR 82%-92%, n=7 studies) caused resistance. Most knew of strategies to reduce resistance (e.g. clinician education, 90%, IQR 85%-96%, n=7 studies). Qualitative findings support these data: they attributed responsibility for antibiotic resistance to patients, other countries and healthcare settings; resistance was considered a low priority and a distant consequence of antibiotic prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians believe antibiotic resistance is a serious problem, but think it is caused by others. This needs to be accommodated in interventions to reduce antibiotic resistance.