Prioritising Key Concepts for informed health choices in cancer: An evidence-based online educational programme.

Objective: The overabundance of health misinformation has undermined people's capacity to make evidence-based, informed choices about their health. Using the Informed Health Choices (IHC) Key Concepts (KCs), we are developing a two-stage education programme, Informed Health Choices-Cancer (IHC-C), to provide those impacted by cancer with the knowledge and skills necessary to think critically about the reliability of health information and claims and make well-informed choices. Stage 1 seeks to prioritise the most relevant Key Concepts. Methods: A project group and a patient and carer participation group completed a two-round prioritisation process. The process involved disseminating pre-reading materials, training sessions, and a structured judgement form to evaluate concepts for inclusion. Data from each round were analysed to reach a consensus on the concepts to include. Results: Fourteen participants were recruited and completed the first-round prioritisation. Fifteen participants undertook the second-round prioritisation. Nine Key Concepts were selected for the programme across five training sessions and two consensus meetings. Conclusion: The prioritised concepts identified represent the most pertinent aspects of cancer-related information for those impacted by the disease. By incorporating these concepts into educational materials and communication strategies, healthcare providers and organisations can potentially help cancer patients, survivors, and their loved ones to recognise and combat cancer-related misinformation more effectively. Innovation: This study introduces a participatory prioritisation process, which integrates the expertise of healthcare professionals with the insights of patients and carers, thereby enhancing the programme's relevance and applicability.

Public participation in decisions about measures to manage the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments and health authorities faced tough decisions about infection prevention and control measures such as social distancing, face masks and travel. Judgements underlying those decisions require democratic input, as well as expert input. The aim of this review is to inform decisions about how best to achieve public participation in decisions about public health and social interventions in the context of a pandemic or other public health emergencies. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review examples of public participation in decisions by governments and health authorities about how to control the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: We searched Participedia and relevant databases in August 2022. Two authors reviewed titles and abstracts and one author screened publications promoted to full text. One author extracted data from included reports using a standard data-extraction form. A second author checked 10% of the extraction forms. We conducted a structured synthesis using framework analysis. RESULTS: We included 24 reports (18 from Participedia). Most took place in high-income countries (n=23), involved 'consulting' the public (n=17) and involved public meetings (usually online). Two initiatives reported explicit support for critical thinking. 11 initiatives were formally evaluated (only three reported impacts). Many initiatives did not contribute to a decision, and 17 initiatives did not include any explicit decision-making criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Decisions about how to manage the COVID-19 pandemic affected nearly everyone. While public participation in those decisions had the potential to improve the quality of the judgements and decisions that were made, build trust, improve adherence and help ensure transparency and accountability, few examples of such initiatives have been reported and most of those have not been formally evaluated. Identified initiatives did point out potential good practices related to online engagement, crowdsourcing and addressing potential power imbalance. Future research should address improved reporting of initiatives, explicit decision-making criteria, support for critical thinking, engagement of marginalised groups and decision-makers and communication with the public. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: 358991.

Use of the informed health choices educational intervention to improve secondary students' ability to think critically about health interventions in Uganda: A cluster-randomized trial.

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.

Effects of the Informed Health Choices secondary school intervention: A prospective meta-analysis.

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.

Effects of the Informed Health Choices secondary school intervention on the ability of students in Rwanda to think critically about health choices: A cluster-randomized trial.

AIM: The aim of this trial was to evaluate the effects of the Informed Health Choices intervention on the ability of students in Rwandan to think critically and make Informed Health Choices. METHODS: We conducted a two-arm cluster-randomized trial in 84 lower secondary schools from 10 districts representing five provinces of Rwanda. We used stratified randomization to allocate schools to the intervention or control. One class in each intervention school had ten 40-min lessons taught by a trained teacher in addition to the usual curriculum. Control schools followed the usual curriculum. The primary outcome was a passing score (≥ 9 out of 18 questions answered correctly) for students on the Critical Thinking about Health Test completed within 2 weeks after the intervention. We conducted an intention-to-treat analysis using generalized linear mixed models, accounting for the cluster design using random intercepts. RESULTS: Between February 25 and March 29, 2022, we recruited 3,212 participants. We assigned 1,572 students and 42 teachers to the intervention arm and 1,556 students and 42 teachers to the control arm. The proportion of students who passed the test in the intervention arm was 915/1,572 (58.2%) compared to 302/1,556 (19.4%) in the control arm, adjusted odds ratio 10.6 (95% CI: 6.3-17.8), p < 0.0001, adjusted difference 37.2% (95% CI: 29.5%-45.0%). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention is effective in helping students think critically about health choices. It was possible to improve students' ability to think critically about health in the context of a competence-based curriculum in Rwanda, despite challenging postpandemic conditions.

Effects of the informed health choices secondary school intervention on the ability of students in Kenya to think critically about health choices: A cluster-randomized trial.

AIM: There is an overabundance of claims about the advantages and disadvantages of health interventions. People need to be able to appraise the reliability of these claims. The aim of this two-arm cluster-randomized trial was to evaluate the Informed Health Choices secondary school intervention designed to teach students to assess claims about the effects of health actions and make informed decisions. METHODS: We conducted the trial among students from 80 secondary schools in five subcounties in Kenya. We used stratified randomization to allocate schools to the intervention or control arm. The intervention included a 2-day teacher training workshop and 10 lessons that addressed nine prioritized key concepts for assessing claims about treatment effects. We did not intervene in the control schools. The primary outcome was the proportion of students with a passing score (≥ 9/18 correct answers) on the Critical Thinking about Health test, which included two multiple-choice questions for each concept. RESULTS: Between May 11, 2022, and July 8, 2022, we recruited 3362 students and 80 teachers. We allocated 1863 students and 40 teachers to the intervention and 1499 students and 40 teachers to the control arm. In the intervention schools, 1149/1863 (61.7%) of students achieved a passing score compared to 511/1499 (34.1%) in the control schools (odds ratio 3.6 (95% CI 2.5-5.2), p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention had a large effect on students' ability to think critically about health interventions. It is possible to integrate the learning of critical thinking about health within Kenya secondary school curriculum.

Prioritisation of Informed Health Choices (IHC) key concepts to be included in lower secondary school resources: A consensus study.

BACKGROUND: The Informed Health Choices Key Concepts are principles for thinking critically about healthcare claims and deciding what to do. The Key Concepts provide a framework for designing curricula, learning resources, and evaluation tools. OBJECTIVES: To prioritise which of the 49 Key Concepts to include in resources for lower secondary schools in East Africa. METHODS: Twelve judges used an iterative process to reach a consensus. The judges were curriculum specialists, teachers, and researchers from Kenya, Uganda, and Rwanda. After familiarising themselves with the concepts, they pilot-tested draft criteria for selecting and ordering the concepts. After agreeing on the criteria, nine judges independently assessed all 49 concepts and reached an initial consensus. We sought feedback on the draft consensus from other stakeholders, including teachers. After considering the feedback, nine judges independently reassessed the prioritised concepts and reached a consensus. The final set of concepts was determined after user-testing prototypes and pilot-testing the resources. RESULTS: The first panel of judges prioritised 29 concepts. Based on feedback from teachers, students, curriculum specialists, and members of the research team, two concepts were dropped. A second panel of nine judges prioritised 17 of the 27 concepts that emerged from the initial prioritisation and feedback. Based on feedback on prototypes of lessons and pilot-testing a set of 10 lessons, we determined that it was possible to introduce nine concepts in 10 single-period (40-minute) lessons. We included eight of the 17 prioritised concepts and one additional concept. CONCLUSION: Using an iterative process with explicit criteria, we prioritised nine concepts as a starting point for students to learn to think critically about healthcare claims and choices.

What should the standard be for passing and mastery on the Critical Thinking about Health Test? A consensus study.

OBJECTIVE: Most health literacy measures rely on subjective self-assessment. The Critical Thinking about Health Test is an objective measure that includes two multiple-choice questions (MCQs) for each of the nine Informed Health Choices Key Concepts included in the educational resources for secondary schools. The objective of this study was to determine cut-off scores for passing (the border between having and not having a basic understanding and the ability to apply the nine concepts) and mastery (the border between having mastered and not having mastered them). DESIGN: Using a combination of two widely used methods: Angoff's and Nedelsky's, a panel judged the likelihood that an individual on the border of passing and another on the border of having mastered the concepts would answer each MCQ correctly. The cut-off scores were determined by summing up the probability of answering each MCQ correctly. Their independent assessments were summarised and discussed. A nominal group technique was used to reach a consensus. SETTING: The study was conducted in secondary schools in East Africa. PARTICIPANTS: The panel included eight individuals with 5 or more years' experience in the following areas: evaluation of critical thinking interventions, curriculum development, teaching of lower secondary school and evidence-informed decision-making. RESULTS: The panel agreed that for a passing score, students had to answer 9 of the 18 questions and for a mastery score, 14 out of 18 questions correctly. CONCLUSION: There was wide variation in the judgements made by individual panel members for many of the questions, but they quickly reached a consensus on the cut-off scores after discussions.

Teaching critical thinking about health information and choices in secondary schools: human-centred design of digital resources.

Background: Learning to thinking critically about health information and choices can protect people from unnecessary suffering, harm, and resource waste. Earlier work revealed that children can learn these skills, but printing costs and curricula compatibility remain important barriers to school implementation. We aimed to develop a set of digital learning resources for students to think critically about health that were suitable for use in Kenyan, Rwandan, and Ugandan secondary schools. Methods: We conducted work in two phases collaborating with teachers, students, schools, and national curriculum development offices using a human-centred design approach. First, we conducted context analyses and an overview of teaching strategies, prioritised content and collected examples. Next, we developed lessons and guidance iteratively, informed by data from user-testing, individual and group interviews, and school pilots. Results: Final resources include online lesson plans, teachers' guide, and extra resources, with lesson plans in two modes, for use in a classroom equipped with a blackboard/flip-chart and a projector. The resources are accessible offline for use when electricity or Internet is lacking. Teachers preferred the projector mode, as it provided structure and a focal point for class attention. Feedback was largely positive, with teachers and students appreciating the learning and experiencing it as relevant. Four main challenges included time to teach lessons; incorrect comprehension; identifying suitable examples; and technical, logistical, and behavioural challenges with a student-computer mode that we piloted. We resolved challenges by simplifying and combining lessons; increasing opportunities for review and assessment; developing teacher training materials, creating a searchable set of examples; and deactivating the student-computer mode. Conclusion: Using a human-centred design approach, we created digital resources for teaching secondary school students to think critically about health actions and for training teachers. Be smart about your health resources are open access and can be translated or adapted to other settings.

Contextualizing critical thinking about health using digital technology in secondary schools in Kenya: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Good health decisions depend on one's ability to think critically about health claims and make informed health choices. Young people can learn these skills through school-based interventions, but learning resources need to be low-cost and built around lessons that can fit into existing curricula. As a first step to developing and evaluating digital learning resources that are feasible to use in Kenyan secondary schools, we conducted a context analysis to explore interest in critical thinking for health, map where critical thinking about health best fits in the curriculum, explore conditions for introducing new learning resources, and describe the information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure available for teaching and learning. METHODS: We employed a qualitative descriptive approach. We interviewed 15 key informants, carried out two focus group discussions, observed ICT conditions in five secondary schools, reviewed seven documents, and conducted an online catalog of ICT infrastructure in all schools (n=250) in Kisumu County. Participants included national curriculum developers, national ICT officers, teachers, and national examiners. We used a framework analysis approach to analyze data and report findings. FINDINGS: Although critical thinking is a core competence in the curriculum, critical thinking about health is not currently taught in Kenyan secondary schools. Teachers, health officials, and curriculum developers recognized the importance of teaching critical thinking about health in secondary schools. Stakeholders agreed that Informed Health Choices learning resources could be embedded in nine subjects. The National Institute of Curriculum Development regulates resources for learning; the development of new resources requires collaboration and approval from this body. Most schools do not use ICT for teaching, and for those few that do, the use is limited. Implementation of Kenya's ICT policy framework for schools faces several challenges which include inadequate ICT infrastructure, poor internet connectivity, and teachers' lack of training and experience. CONCLUSION: Teaching critical thinking about health is possible within the current Kenyan lower secondary school curriculum, but the learning resources will need to be designed for inclusion in and across existing subjects. The National ICT Plan and Vision for 2030 provides an opportunity for scale-up and integration of technology in teaching and learning environments, which can enable future use of digital resources in schools. However, given the current ICT condition in schools in the country, digital learning resources should be designed to function with limited ICT infrastructure, unstable Internet access, and for use by teachers with low levels of experience using digital technology.

Health communication in and out of public health emergencies: to persuade or to inform?

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.

Learning to think critically about health using digital technology in Ugandan lower secondary schools: A contextual analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The world is awash with claims about the effects of health interventions. Many of these claims are untrustworthy because the bases are unreliable. Acting on unreliable claims can lead to waste of resources and poor health outcomes. Yet, most people lack the necessary skills to appraise the reliability of health claims. The Informed Health Choices (IHC) project aims to equip young people in Ugandan lower secondary schools with skills to think critically about health claims and to make good health choices by developing and evaluating digital learning resources. To ensure that we create resources that are suitable for use in Uganda's secondary schools and can be scaled up if found effective, we conducted a context analysis. We aimed to better understand opportunities and barriers related to demand for the resources, how the learning content overlaps with existing curriculum and conditions in secondary schools for accessing and using digital resources, in order to inform resource development. METHODS: We used a mixed methods approach and collected both qualitative and quantitative data. We conducted document analyses, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, school visits, and a telephone survey regarding information communication and technology (ICT). We used a nominal group technique to obtain consensus on the appropriate number and length of IHC lessons that should be planned in a school term. We developed and used a framework from the objectives to code the transcripts and generated summaries of query reports in Atlas.ti version 7. FINDINGS: Critical thinking is a key competency in the lower secondary school curriculum. However, the curriculum does not explicitly make provision to teach critical thinking about health, despite a need acknowledged by curriculum developers, teachers and students. Exam oriented teaching and a lack of learning resources are additional important barriers to teaching critical thinking about health. School closures and the subsequent introduction of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated teachers' use of digital equipment and learning resources for teaching. Although the government is committed to improving access to ICT in schools and teachers are open to using ICT, access to digital equipment, unreliable power and internet connections remain important hinderances to use of digital learning resources. CONCLUSIONS: There is a recognized need for learning resources to teach critical thinking about health in Ugandan lower secondary schools. Digital learning resources should be designed to be usable even in schools with limited access and equipment. Teacher training on use of ICT for teaching is needed.

Key concepts for informed health choices: Where's the evidence?

Background: The Informed Health Choices (IHC) Key Concepts is a framework that provides a basis for developing educational resources and evaluating people's ability to think critically about health actions. We developed the original Key Concepts framework by reviewing texts and checklists for the public, journalists, and health professionals and collecting structured feedback from an international advisory group. We revised the original 2015 framework yearly from 2016 to 2018 based on feedback and experience using the framework. The objectives of this paper are to describe the development of the framework since 2018 and summarise their basis. Methods: For the 2019 version, we responded to feedback on the 2018 version. For the current 2022 version, in addition to responding to feedback on the 2019 version, we reviewed the evidence base for each of the concepts. Whenever possible, we referenced systematic reviews that provide a basis for a concept. We screened all Cochrane methodology reviews and searched Epistemonikos, PubMed, and Google Scholar for methodology reviews and meta-epidemiological studies. Results: The original framework included 32 concepts in six groups. The 2019 version and the current 2022 version include 49 concepts in the same three main groups that we have used since 2016. There are now 10 subgroups or higher-level concepts. For each concept, there is an explanation including one or more examples, the basis for the concept, and implications. Over 600 references are cited that support the concepts, and over half of the references are systematic reviews. Conclusions: There is a large body of evidence that supports the IHC key concepts and we have received few suggestions for changes since 2019.

Prioritising Informed Health Choices Key Concepts for those impacted by cancer: a protocol.

Background: Few areas of health have been as insidiously influenced by misinformation as cancer. Thus, interventions that can help people impacted by cancer reduce the extent to which they are victims of misinformation are necessary. The Informed Health Choices (IHC) initiative has developed Key Concepts that can be used in the development of interventions for evaluating the trustworthiness of claims about the effects of health treatments. We are developing an online education programme called Informed Health Choices-Cancer (IHC-C) based on the IHC Key Concepts. We will provide those impacted by cancer with the knowledge and skills necessary to think critically about the reliability of health information and claims and make informed choices. Methods: We will establish a steering group (SG) of 12 key stakeholders, including oncology specialists and academics. In addition, we will establish a patient and public involvement (PPI) panel of 20 people impacted by cancer. After training the members on the Key Concepts and the prioritisation process, we will conduct a two-round prioritisation process. In the first round, 12 SG members and four PPI panel members will prioritise Key Concepts for inclusion. In the second round, the remaining 16 PPI members will undertake the prioritisation based on the prioritised Key Concepts from the first round. Participants in both rounds will use a structured judgement form to rate the importance of the Key Concepts for inclusion in the online IHC-C programme. A consensus meeting will be held, where members will reach a consensus on the Key Concepts to be included and rank the order in which the prioritised Key Concepts will be addressed in the IHC-C programme. Conclusions: At the end of this process, we will identify which Key Concepts should be included and the order in which they should be addressed in the IHC-C programme.

Teaching critical thinking about health using digital technology in lower secondary schools in Rwanda: A qualitative context analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Adolescents encounter misleading claims about health interventions that can affect their health. Young people need to develop critical thinking skills to enable them to verify health claims and make informed choices. Schools could teach these important life skills, but educators need access to suitable learning resources that are aligned with their curriculum. The overall objective of this context analysis was to explore conditions for teaching critical thinking about health interventions using digital technology to lower secondary school students in Rwanda. METHODS: We undertook a qualitative descriptive study using four methods: document review, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and observations. We reviewed 29 documents related to the national curriculum and ICT conditions in secondary schools. We conducted 8 interviews and 5 focus group discussions with students, teachers, and policy makers. We observed ICT conditions and use in five schools. We analysed the data using a framework analysis approach. RESULTS: Two major themes found. The first was demand for teaching critical thinking about health. The current curriculum explicitly aims to develop critical thinking competences in students. Critical thinking and health topics are taught across subjects. But understanding and teaching of critical thinking varies among teachers, and critical thinking about health is not being taught. The second theme was the current and expected ICT conditions. Most public schools have computers, projectors, and internet connectivity. However, use of ICT in teaching is limited, due in part to low computer to student ratios. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for learning resources to develop critical thinking skills generally and critical thinking about health specifically. Such skills could be taught within the existing curriculum using available ICT technologies. Digital resources for teaching critical thinking about health should be designed so that they can be used flexibly across subjects and easily by teachers and students.

Quality of information in news media reports about the effects of health interventions: Systematic review and meta-analyses.

Background Many studies have assessed the quality of news reports about the effects of health interventions, but there has been no systematic review of such studies or meta-analysis of their results. We aimed to fill this gap (PROSPERO ID: CRD42018095032). Methods We included studies that used at least one explicit, prespecified and generic criterion to assess the quality of news reports in print, broadcast, or online news media, and specified the sampling frame, and the selection criteria and technique. We assessed criteria individually for inclusion in the meta-analyses, excluding ineligible criteria and criteria with inadequately reported results. We mapped and grouped criteria to facilitate evidence synthesis. Where possible, we extracted the proportion of news reports meeting the included criterion. We performed meta-analyses using a random effects model to estimate such proportions for individual criteria and some criteria groups, and to characterise heterogeneity across studies.  Results We included 44 primary studies in the review, and 18 studies and 108 quality criteria in the meta-analyses. Many news reports gave an unbalanced and oversimplified picture of the potential consequences of interventions. A limited number mention or adequately address conflicts of interest (22%; 95% CI 7%-49%) (low certainty), alternative interventions (36%; 95% CI 26%-47%) (moderate certainty), potential harms (40%; 95% CI 23%-61%) (low certainty), or costs (18%; 95% CI 12%-28%) (moderate certainty), or quantify effects (53%; 95% CI 36%-69%) (low certainty) or report absolute effects (17%; 95% CI 4%-49%) (low certainty).  Discussion There is room for improving health news, but it is logically more important to improve the public's ability to critically appraise health information and make judgements for themselves.

Comparison of the Informed Health Choices Key Concepts Framework to other frameworks relevant to teaching and learning how to think critically about health claims and choices: a systematic review.

Background: The Informed Health Choices (IHC) Key Concepts are principles for evaluating the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects. The Key Concepts provide a framework for developing learning-resources to help people use the concepts when treatment claims are made, and when they make health choices. Objective: To compare the framework provided by the IHC Key Concepts to other frameworks intended to promote critical thinking about treatment (intervention) claims and choices. Methods: We identified relevant frameworks from reviews of frameworks, searching Google Scholar, citation searches, and contact with key informants. We included frameworks intended to provide a structure for teaching or learning to think critically about the basis for claims, evidence used to support claims, or informed choices. For a framework to be included, there had to be a description of its purpose; a list of concepts, competences, or dispositions; and definitions of key terms. We made independent assessments of framework eligibility and extracted data for each included framework using standardised forms. Results: Twenty-two frameworks met our inclusion criteria. The purpose of the IHC Framework is similar to that of two frameworks for critical thinking and somewhat similar to that of a framework for evidence-based practice. Those frameworks have broader scopes than the IHC Framework. An important limitation of broad frameworks is that they do not provide an adequate basis (concepts) for deciding which claims to believe and what to do. There was at most some overlap between the concepts, competences, and dispositions in each of the 22 included frameworks and those in the IHC Framework. Conclusions: The IHC Key Concepts Framework appears to be unique.  Our review has shown how it and other frameworks can be improved by taking account of the ways in which other related frameworks have been developed, evaluated, and made useful.

Protocol for assessing stakeholder engagement in the development and evaluation of the Informed Health Choices resources teaching secondary school students to think critically about health claims and choices.

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.

Development of a checklist for people communicating evidence-based information about the effects of healthcare interventions: a mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVES: To make informed decisions about healthcare, patients and the public, health professionals and policymakers need information about the effects of interventions. People need information that is based on the best available evidence; that is presented in a complete and unbiased way; and that is relevant, trustworthy and easy to use and to understand. The aim of this paper is to provide guidance and a checklist to those producing and communicating evidence-based information about the effects of interventions intended to inform decisions about healthcare. DESIGN: To inform the development of this checklist, we identified research relevant to communicating evidence-based information about the effects of interventions. We used an iterative, informal consensus process to synthesise our recommendations. We began by discussing and agreeing on some initial recommendations, based on our own experience and research over the past 20-30 years. Subsequent revisions were informed by the literature we examined and feedback. We also compared our recommendations to those made by others. We sought structured feedback from people with relevant expertise, including people who prepare and use information about the effects of interventions for the public, health professionals or policymakers. RESULTS: We produced a checklist with 10 recommendations. Three recommendations focus on making it easy to quickly determine the relevance of the information and find the key messages. Five recommendations are about helping the reader understand the size of effects and how sure we are about those estimates. Two recommendations are about helping the reader put information about intervention effects in context and understand if and why the information is trustworthy. CONCLUSIONS: These 10 recommendations summarise lessons we have learnt developing and evaluating ways of helping people to make well-informed decisions by making research evidence more understandable and useful for them. We welcome feedback for how to improve our advice.