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.

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.

Users' experiences with an interactive Evidence to Decision (iEtD) framework: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks bring clarity, structure and transparency to health care decision making. The interactive Evidence to Decision (iEtD) tool, developed in the context of the DECIDE project and published by Epistemonikos, is a stand-alone online solution for producing and using EtD frameworks. Since its development, little is known about how organizations have been using the iEtD tool and what characterizes users' experiences with it. This missing information is necessary for any teams planning future developments of the iEtD tool. METHODS: This study aimed to describe users' experiences with the iEtD and identify main barriers and facilitators related to use. We contacted all users registered in the iEtD via email and invited people who identified themselves as having used the solution to a semi-structured interview. Audio recordings were transcribed, and one researcher conducted a directed content analysis of the interviews guided by a user experience framework. Two researchers checked the content independently for accuracy. RESULTS: Out of 860 people contacted, 81 people replied to our introductory email (response rate 9.4%). Twenty of these had used the tool in a real scenario and were invited to an interview. We interviewed all eight users that accepted this invitation (from six countries, four continents). 'Guideline development' was the iEtD use scenario they most commonly identified. Most participants reported an overall positive experience, without major difficulties navigating or using the different sections. They reported having used most of the EtD framework criteria. Participants reported tailoring their frameworks, for instance by adding or deleting criteria, translating to another language, or rewording headings. Several people preferred to produce a Word version rather than working online, due to the burden of completing the framework, or lack of experience with the tool. Some reported difficulties working with the exportable formats, as they needed considerable editing. CONCLUSION: A very limited number of guideline developers have used the iEtD tool published by Epistemonikos since its development. Although users' general experiences are positive, our work has identified some aspects of the tool that need improvement. Our findings could be also applied to development or improvement of other solutions for producing or using EtD frameworks.

The GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for health system and public health decisions.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a framework for people making and using evidence-informed health system and public health recommendations and decisions. BACKGROUND: We developed the GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for health system and public health decisions as part of the DECIDE project, in which we simultaneously developed frameworks for these and other types of healthcare decisions, including clinical recommendations, coverage decisions and decisions about diagnostic tests. DEVELOPING THE FRAMEWORK: Building on GRADE EtD tables, we used an iterative approach, including brainstorming, consultation of the literature and with stakeholders, and an international survey of policy-makers. We applied the framework to diverse examples, conducted workshops and user testing with health system and public health guideline developers and policy-makers, and observed and tested its use in real-life guideline panels. FINDINGS: All the GRADE EtD frameworks share the same basic structure, including sections for formulating the question, making an assessment and drawing conclusions. Criteria listed in the assessment section of the health system and public health framework cover the important factors for making these types of decisions; in addition to the effects and economic impact of an option, the priority of the problem, the impact of the option on equity, and its acceptability and feasibility are important considerations that can inform both whether and how to implement an option. Because health system and public health interventions are often complex, detailed implementation considerations should be made when making a decision. The certainty of the evidence is often low or very low, but decision-makers must still act. Monitoring and evaluation are therefore often important considerations for these types of decisions. We illustrate the different components of the EtD framework for health system and public health decisions by presenting their application in a framework adapted from a real-life guideline. DISCUSSION: This framework provides a structured and transparent approach to support policy-making informed by the best available research evidence, while making the basis for decisions accessible to those whom they will affect. The health system and public health EtD framework can also be used to facilitate dissemination of recommendations and enable decision-makers to adopt, and adapt, recommendations or decisions.

Marcos GRADE de la evidencia a la decisión (EtD): un enfoque sistemático y transparente para tomar decisiones sanitarias bien informadas. 1: Introducción / GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction

Los médicos y quienes elaboran guías y políticas a veces pasan por alto criterios importantes, les dan un peso indebido o no usan la mejor evidencia disponible para informar sus juicios. Los sistemas explícitos y transparentes para la toma de decisiones pueden ayudar a garantizar que se consideren todos los criterios importantes, y que las decisiones estén basadas en la mejor evidencia disponible. El grupo de trabajo GRADE ha desarrollado marcos «de la evidencia a la decisión» (EtD) para los diferentes tipos de recomendaciones o decisiones. El objetivo de los marcos EtD es ayudar a los paneles a usar la evidencia de una manera estructurada y transparente para informar las decisiones respecto de las recomendaciones clínicas, decisiones de cobertura sanitaria y recomendaciones o decisiones sobre el sistema sanitario o sobre salud pública. Los marcos EtD tienen una estructura común: formulación de una pregunta, evaluación de la evidencia y conclusiones. No obstante, existen diferencias entre los marcos para cada tipo de decisión. Los marcos EtD informan a los usuarios sobre los juicios que se han hecho y la evidencia que los apoya dotando de transparencia la base para las decisiones de los que tienen que tomarlas. Los marcos EtD también facilitan la diseminación de las recomendaciones y permiten a los decisores de otros ámbitos adoptar recomendaciones o decisiones, o adaptarlas a su contexto. El siguiente artículo es una traducción del artículo original publicado en British Medical Journal. Los marcos EtD se utilizan actualmente en el marco del Programa de Guías de Práctica Clínica en el Sistema Nacional de Salud, coordinado por GuíaSalud (AU)

Clinicians, guideline developers, and policymakers sometimes neglect important criteria, give undue weight to criteria, and do not use the best available evidence to inform their judgments. Explicit and transparent systems for decision making can help to ensure that all important criteria are considered and that decisions are informed by the best available research evidence. The GRADE Working Group has developed Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks for the different type of recommendations or decisions. The purpose of EtD frameworks is to help people use evidence in a structured and transparent way to inform decisions in the context of clinical recommendations, coverage decisions, and health system or public health recommendations and decisions. EtD frameworks have a common structure that includes formulation of the question, an assessment of the evidence, and drawing conclusions, though there are some differences between frameworks for each type of decision. EtD frameworks inform users about the judgments that were made and the evidence supporting those judgments by making the basis for decisions transparent to target audiences. EtD frameworks also facilitate dissemination of recommendations and enable decision makers in other jurisdictions to adopt recommendations or decisions, or adapt them to their context. This article is a translation of the original article published in British Medical Journal. The EtD frameworks are currently used in the Clinical Practice Guideline Programme of the Spanish National Health System, co-ordinated by GuíaSalud (AU)

Marcos GRADE de la evidencia a la decisión (EtD): un enfoque sistemático y transparente para tomar decisiones sanitarias bien informadas. 2: Guías de práctica clínica / GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: Clinical practice guidelines

Los médicos no disponen del tiempo ni de los recursos para considerar la evidencia subyacente en las innumerables decisiones que tienen que tomar diariamente. En consecuencia, dependen de las recomendaciones de las guías de práctica clínica. Los paneles de las guías deben considerar todos los criterios relevantes que influyen en una decisión o recomendación de manera estructurada, explícita y transparente, y proporcionar a los médicos recomendaciones factibles. En este artículo describiremos los marcos de la evidencia a la decisión (EtD) para las recomendaciones de práctica clínica. La estructura general de un marco EtD para recomendaciones clínicas es similar a la de los marcos EtD para otras recomendaciones y decisiones, e incluye la formulación de la pregunta, la evaluación de los distintos criterios y las conclusiones. Las recomendaciones clínicas requieren que los criterios se consideren de forma diferente, dependiendo de si se adopta una perspectiva individual o poblacional. Por ejemplo, desde la perspectiva individual, los gastos personales son un aspecto importante a considerar, mientras que desde la perspectiva poblacional son más importantes el uso de recursos (no solo los gastos personales) y el coste-efectividad. Son también importantes desde la perspectiva poblacional la equidad, la aceptabilidad y la factibilidad, mientras que la importancia de estos criterios suele ser limitada en el caso de la perspectiva individual. Los subgrupos específicos para los cuales pueden necesitarse recomendaciones deben estar claramente identificados y considerados con relación a cada criterio, porque los juicios pueden variar entre subgrupos. El siguiente artículo es una traducción del artículo original publicado en British Medical Journal. Los marcos EtD se utilizan actualmente en el Programa de Guías de Práctica Clínica en el Sistema Nacional de Salud, coordinado por GuíaSalud (AU)

Clinicians do not have the time or resources to consider the underlying evidence for the myriad decisions they must make each day and, as a consequence, rely on recommendations from clinical practice guidelines. Guideline panels should consider all the relevant factors (criteria) that influence a decision or recommendation in a structured, explicit, and transparent way and provide clinicians with clear and actionable recommendations. In this article, we will describe the Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks for clinical practice recommendations. The general structure of the EtD framework for clinical recommendations is similar to EtD frameworks for other types of recommendations and decisions, and includes formulation of the question, an assessment of the different criteria, and conclusions. Clinical recommendations require considering criteria differently, depending on whether an individual patient or a population perspective is taken. For example, from an individual patient's perspective, out-of-pocket costs are an important consideration, whereas, from a population perspective, resource use (not only out-of-pocket costs) and cost effectiveness are important. From a population perspective, equity, acceptability, and feasibility are also important considerations, whereas the importance of these criteria is often limited from an individual patient perspective. Specific subgroups for which different recommendations may be required should be clearly identified and considered in relation to each criterion because judgments might vary across subgroups. This article is a translation of the original article published in the British Medical Journal. The EtD frameworks are currently used in the Clinical Practice Guideline Programme of the Spanish National Health System, co-ordinated by GuíaSalud (AU)

[GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: Clinical practice guidelines]. / Marcos GRADE de la evidencia a la decisión (EtD): un enfoque sistemático y transparente para tomar decisiones sanitarias bien informadas. 2: Guías de práctica clínica.

Clinicians do not have the time or resources to consider the underlying evidence for the myriad decisions they must make each day and, as a consequence, rely on recommendations from clinical practice guidelines. Guideline panels should consider all the relevant factors (criteria) that influence a decision or recommendation in a structured, explicit, and transparent way and provide clinicians with clear and actionable recommendations. In this article, we will describe the Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks for clinical practice recommendations. The general structure of the EtD framework for clinical recommendations is similar to EtD frameworks for other types of recommendations and decisions, and includes formulation of the question, an assessment of the different criteria, and conclusions. Clinical recommendations require considering criteria differently, depending on whether an individual patient or a population perspective is taken. For example, from an individual patient's perspective, out-of-pocket costs are an important consideration, whereas, from a population perspective, resource use (not only out-of-pocket costs) and cost effectiveness are important. From a population perspective, equity, acceptability, and feasibility are also important considerations, whereas the importance of these criteria is often limited from an individual patient perspective. Specific subgroups for which different recommendations may be required should be clearly identified and considered in relation to each criterion because judgments might vary across subgroups. This article is a translation of the original article published in the British Medical Journal. The EtD frameworks are currently used in the Clinical Practice Guideline Programme of the Spanish National Health System, co-ordinated by GuíaSalud.

[GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction]. / Marcos GRADE de la evidencia a la decisión (EtD): un enfoque sistemático y transparente para tomar decisiones sanitarias bien informadas. 1: Introducción.

Clinicians, guideline developers, and policymakers sometimes neglect important criteria, give undue weight to criteria, and do not use the best available evidence to inform their judgments. Explicit and transparent systems for decision making can help to ensure that all important criteria are considered and that decisions are informed by the best available research evidence. The GRADE Working Group has developed Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks for the different type of recommendations or decisions. The purpose of EtD frameworks is to help people use evidence in a structured and transparent way to inform decisions in the context of clinical recommendations, coverage decisions, and health system or public health recommendations and decisions. EtD frameworks have a common structure that includes formulation of the question, an assessment of the evidence, and drawing conclusions, though there are some differences between frameworks for each type of decision. EtD frameworks inform users about the judgments that were made and the evidence supporting those judgments by making the basis for decisions transparent to target audiences. EtD frameworks also facilitate dissemination of recommendations and enable decision makers in other jurisdictions to adopt recommendations or decisions, or adapt them to their context. This article is a translation of the original article published in British Medical Journal. The EtD frameworks are currently used in the Clinical Practice Guideline Programme of the Spanish National Health System, co-ordinated by GuíaSalud.

Developing Evidence to Decision Frameworks and an Interactive Evidence to Decision Tool for Making and Using Decisions and Recommendations in Health Care.

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.

GRADE EVIDENCE TO DECISION (EtD) FRAMEWORK FOR COVERAGE DECISIONS.

OBJECTIVES: Coverage decisions are decisions by third party payers about whether and how much to pay for technologies or services, and under what conditions. Given their complexity, a systematic and transparent approach is needed. The DECIDE (Developing and Evaluating Communication Strategies to Support Informed Decisions and Practice Based on Evidence) Project, a GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group initiative funded by the European Union, has developed GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for different types of decisions, including coverage ones. METHODS: We used an iterative approach, including brainstorming to generate ideas, consultation with stakeholders, user testing, and pilot testing of the framework. RESULTS: The general structure of the EtD includes formulation of the question, an assessment using twelve criteria, and conclusions. Criteria that are relevant for coverage decisions are similar to those for clinical recommendations from a population perspective. Important differences between the two include the decision-making processes, accountability, and the nature of the judgments that need to be made for some criteria. Although cost-effectiveness is a key consideration when making coverage decisions, it may not be the determining factor. Strength of recommendation is not directly linked to the type of coverage decisions, but when there are important uncertainties, it may be possible to cover an intervention for a subgroup, in the context of research, with price negotiation, or with restrictions. CONCLUSIONS: The EtD provides a systematic and transparent approach for making coverage decisions. It helps ensure consideration of key criteria that determine whether a technology or service should be covered and that judgments are informed by the best available evidence.

Clinical screening for obsessive-compulsive and related disorders.

BACKGROUND: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) and other OCD-related disorders (OCDs) are frequently overlooked during medical or even psychiatric evaluation. Individuals with affective disorders, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, alcohol abuse and schizophrenia are commonly affected. Increased prevalence of OCDs is also reported to occur in certain secondary health-care settings. Better identification and treatment of OCDs are increasingly recognized as important public health priorities. METHOD: In this narrative review we consider the arguments for the use of screening strategies for OCD in clinical practice, paying particular attention to pragmatic issues such as the shortage of suitable screening instruments and areas of medical practice where screening might most profitably be exercised. RESULTS: Arguments for screening in fields where affected individuals congregate appear persuasive, although evidence that screening produces clinical and social benefits by reducing morbidity is still lacking. CONCLUSION: Confirmation of health-care settings attracting high concentrations of OCD and BDD and evaluation of specific screening instruments and their utility in reducing the burden of disease are important areas for future research. Further evaluation of the validity and reliability of specific screening tools across different clinical populations is required.