Differences between Health and Non-Health Science Students in Lifestyle Habits, Perceived Stress and Psychological Well-Being: A Cross-Sectional Study.

The aim of this study was to investigate lifestyle habits in health and non-health science students from the University of Split, Croatia, and to evaluate their association with perceived stress and psychological well-being. We surveyed 783 students during February-March 2021. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was used in the analysis. Health science students spent less time using screens, were sitting less, slept less, but also showed better compliance with the Mediterranean diet compared to non-health science students (10.6% vs. 5.9%). There were no differences in stress and well-being perception between the two study groups. Female gender, lack of sleep, less daily sitting time, anxiety, and lower optimism were associated with higher stress in non-health science students, while anxiousness and more sitting were found to be significant among health students. Well-being among health science students was positively associated with BMI, having had COVID-19, being refreshed after waking up during working days, Mediterranean diet adherence, health perception, optimism, and quality of life, and negatively with TV time and anxiousness. Shorter sleep duration on non-working days, feeling refreshed after waking up on non-working days, higher quality of life and optimism, and lower anxiousness were associated with higher well-being among non-health students. Identifying unhealthy lifestyle habits in students is essential for implementing targeted interventions to better their health outcomes.

Evaluating health claim assessment skills of parents with preschool children: A cross-sectional study using Informed Health Choices Claim Evaluation Tool.

Background: Health literacy is a global problem and is particularly relevant when making health care decisions about small children. We analysed how parents of preschool children assess health claims and explored the predictors of their assessment skill. Methods: We conducted a survey with questions from the Claim Evaluation Tools (CET) database, part of the Informed Health Choices (IHC) project, in ten paediatric primary care practices of the Split-Dalmatia County Health Center, Split, Croatia, from 1 February to 31 March 2023. Eligible participants were parents accompanying preschool-aged children for check-ups. We also collected data on parents' and children's demographic and health characteristics (including the presence of any chronic illness in the child), visits to paediatric emergency service, hospitalisations, vaccination status, the presence of chronic illness of parents or relatives, and whether parents had to made treatment decisions for themselves and/or their family member. Results: Overall, 402 parents of preschool children (median age 35 years (interquartile range (IQR) = 31.0-38.3)) had a median IHC CET test score of 10.0 (IQR = 8.0-11.0) out of 12 questions. The multiple regression analysis showed that female gender, higher level of education, being employed, and having a history of a visit to paediatric emergency service were significant predictors of the test score, explaining 21.9% of the variance. Conclusions: Parents of preschool children have a very good ability for critical assessment of health-related statements in a complex health care system and an environment of generally unsatisfactory health literacy. Further studies should explore how parents understand health claims in different geographical, socio-economic and cultural setting, and explore educational interventions to increase critical thinking abilities and informed decision-making, especially among fathers, unemployed parents and those with lower levels of education.

Determinants of COVID Vaccination Willingness among Health and Non-Health Studies Students: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Students, as a relatively health-informed population group, may still have limitations in health literacy, which is a concern as students take increasing responsibility for their health and make independent health decisions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the overall attitudes towards COVID vaccination among university students and to investigate various factors contributing to vaccination willingness among health and non-health studies students. A total of 752 students from the University of Split were included in this cross-sectional study and completed a questionnaire that consisted of three sections: socio-demographic data, health status information, and information on vaccination against COVID-19. Results show that the majority of students of health and natural sciences were willing to be vaccinated, but the majority of students of social sciences were not (p < 0.001). Students who used credible sources of information had a more significant proportion of those willing to be vaccinated and the majority of students who used less credible sources (79%) or did not think about it (68.8%) were unwilling to be vaccinated (p < 0.001). Multiple binary logistic regression modeling shows that female gender, younger age, studying social sciences, negative opinion about the need to reintroduce lockdown and the effectiveness of epidemiological measures, and usage of less credible sources of information were the most important factors contributing to increased vaccination hesitancy. Therefore, improving health literacy and restoring trust in relevant institutions can be critical in health promotion and COVID-19 prevention.

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.

Creating an online educational intervention to improve knowledge about systematic reviews among healthcare workers: mixed-methods pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Lack of knowledge about systematic reviews (SRs) could prevent individual healthcare workers (HCWs) from using SRs as a source of information in their clinical practice or discourage them from participating in such research. In this study, we aimed to explore in-depth the opinion of a sample of HCWs about the newly created online educational intervention designed to improve knowledge about SRs. METHODS: We created a brief online educational intervention on SRs, consisting of 11 textual modules. We evaluated it among practicing HCWs who graduated from a university-level health sciences program using a mixed-methods pilot study that consisted of pre- and post-intervention questionnaires and qualitative evaluation via semi-structured interviews. We assessed participants' knowledge about SR methodology before and after the intervention, and compared the responses. We sought their opinions about the characteristics of SRs. Also, the participants were presented with four scientific abstracts, where they were asked to distinguish whether those abstracts presented summaries of a systematic or a non-systematic review. RESULTS: Twelve participants took part in the study. In the pilot study, the participants' knowledge about SRs was improved after the intervention compared to the baseline. Participants provided positive feedback regarding the educational intervention. Suggestions to improve the educational intervention were to provide more details about the forest plot, add more digital content or images, provide more details about the methodological steps of an SR, add descriptions about practical applications of SRs and provide links to additional educational materials. The participants suggested that HCWs could be motivated to take part in such an education if it is offered as continuing medical education (CME) course or credit for academic/career advancement. CONCLUSION: HCWs provided positive feedback about the newly designed online educational intervention on SRs; they considered it an appropriate tool for learning about SRs and resulted in increased knowledge about SRs. In addition, participants gave suggestions for improving education, which can be used to tailor the education for end-users. In future studies, it would be useful to examine the effectiveness of the modified educational intervention on increasing knowledge in a larger sample and in the form of a randomized controlled trial.

Web-Based Educational Intervention to Improve Knowledge of Systematic Reviews Among Health Science Professionals: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Lack of knowledge of systematic reviews (SRs) could prevent individual health care professionals from using SRs as a source of information in their clinical practice or discourage them from participating in such research. OBJECTIVE: In this randomized controlled trial, we evaluated the effect of a short web-based educational intervention on short-term knowledge of SRs. METHODS: Eligible participants were 871 Master's students of university health sciences studies in Croatia; 589 (67.6%) students who agreed to participate in the trial were randomized using a computer program into 2 groups. Intervention group A (294/589, 49.9%) received a short web-based educational intervention about SR methodology, and intervention group B (295/589, 50.1%) was presented with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist. The participants' knowledge of SRs was assessed before and after the intervention. The participants could not be blinded because of the nature of the intervention. The primary outcome was the difference in the percentage of correct answers about SR methodology per participant between the groups after the intervention, expressed as relative risk and 95% CI. RESULTS: Results from 162 and 165 participants in the educational intervention and PRISMA checklist groups, respectively, were available for analysis. Most of them (educational intervention group: 130/162, 80.2%; PRISMA checklist group: 131/165, 79.4%) were employed as health care professionals in addition to being health sciences students. After the intervention, the educational intervention group had 23% (relative risk percentage) more correct answers in the postintervention questionnaire than the PRISMA checklist group (relative risk=1.23, 95% CI 1.17-1.29). CONCLUSIONS: A short web-based educational intervention about SRs is an effective tool for short-term improvement of knowledge of SRs among health care studies students, most of whom were also employed as health care professionals. Further studies are needed to explore the long-term effects of the tested education. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OSF Registries 10.17605/OSF.IO/RYMVC; https://osf.io/rymvc.

Development and Initial Validation of the Oral Health Activities Questionnaire.

Background: The purpose of this study was to introduce a new Oral Health Activities Questionnaire (OHAQ, hereinafter) that examines different activities and behaviours related to the oral hygiene regimen of each analysed subject. Methods: A sample of 658 students was analysed to determine the OHAQ scale's basic metric characteristics. To determine the construct validity of the OHAQ, descriptive statistics and correlation analysis, as well as differences testing, were applied to groups of subjects on the basis of self-reported oral status measures. Results: The dimensions of oral health activities were determined, and the scales for their measurement were constructed. Females and males differed in the OHAQ questionnaire measures. Significant but low intercorrelations were found among the measures. In the female and male subsample, four different oral health (OH, hereinafter) types of subjects were identified, exhibiting different characteristic behaviours regarding oral health. OHAQ scales showed good discriminant validity, revealing the differences related to specific self-reported oral status measures (e.g., frequency of toothache and the number of filled teeth). Conclusions: The OHAQ represents a satisfactory measurement instrument for determining the level of OH activities and for doing quick and reliable classifications of the participating subjects according to their OH activities and behaviours. The process of further validation and advancements of the OHAQ scales and measures should be continued through a clinical examination of subjects.

A cross-sectional study on adaptation and initial validation of a test to evaluate health claims among high school students: Croatian version.

OBJECTIVES: We validated the Croatian version of the test using multiple-choice questions (MCQs) from the Claim Evaluation Tools item bank of the Informed Health Choices project, and measured the ability of high school students to appraise health claims. SETTING: 16 high schools from the urban agglomeration of the city of Split, Croatia. PARTICIPANTS: Final year high school students of at least 18 years of age. INTERVENTIONS: 18 MCQs from the item bank considered relevant for high school students were translated. After face-validity testing, the questionnaire was piloted and sent to a convenient sample of 302 high school students. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Difficulty and discrimination indices were calculated for each MCQ to determine the validity of translation and the weight of MCQs. We assessed basic metric characteristics and performed initial validation of the test. Two tests were created, the full (18 MCQs) and the short version (12 MCQs). We analysed differences in test score according to gender and school. RESULTS: The response rate was 96% (75% female respondents). Metric characteristics of both tests were satisfactory (Cronbach's α=0.71 for the full and α=0.73 for the short version). The mean score (±SD) for the full version was 11.15±3.43 and 8.13±2.76 for the short version. There were 6 easy and 12 moderately difficult questions. Questions concerning effectiveness and dissimilar comparison groups were answered correctly by fewer than 40% of students. Female students and those from grammar and health schools scored higher on both tests. CONCLUSIONS: Both tests showed good metric characteristics and may be used for quick and reliable assessments of adolescents' ability to appraise health claims. They may be used to identify needs and inform development of educational activities to foster critical thinking about health among adolescents.

Attitudes and concerns of undergraduate university health sciences students in Croatia regarding complete switch to e-learning during COVID-19 pandemic: a survey.

BACKGROUND: Croatia has closed all educational institutions after 32 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection were confirmed and switched to exclusive e-learning. Health sciences university students may have been particularly affected with this change due to a lack of practical education. It is not known how health sciences students and schools have adjusted to exclusive e-learning. This study aimed to explore attitudes and concerns of health sciences students in Croatia regarding the complete switch to e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Eligible participants were students from 9 institutions offering university-level health sciences education in Croatia enrolled in the academic year 2019/2010, and participating in e-learning. Data were collected with a questionnaire distributed via email during April/May 2020. RESULTS: A total of 2520 students (aged 25.7 ± 7.7 years) responded to the questionnaire (70.3% response rate). General satisfaction with exclusive e-learning was rated with average grade of 3.7 out of 5. Compared with previous education, exclusive e-learning was rated with average grade of 3.2 out of 5. Compared to classroom learning, equal or higher motivation to attend exclusive e-learning was reported by 64.4% of participants. With a longer duration of exclusive e-learning, equal or higher motivation was reported by 65.5% of participants. Less than half of the students indicated they felt deprived or concerned due to the lack of practical lessons. Most participants indicated that in the future, they would prefer to combine classic classroom and e-learning (N = 1403; 55.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Most health sciences students were satisfied with the exclusive e-learning, as well as their personal and institutional adjustment to it. Students' feedback can help institutions to improve the exclusive e-learning experience for students in the time of the pandemic.