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.

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.

Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) for Guidelines: Paper 1 - Using qualitative evidence synthesis to inform guideline scope and develop qualitative findings statements.

BACKGROUND: WHO has recognised the need to ensure that guideline processes are transparent and evidence based, and that the resulting recommendations are relevant and applicable. Along with decision-making criteria that require findings from effectiveness reviews, WHO is increasingly using evidence derived from qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) to inform the values, acceptability, equity and feasibility implications of its recommendations. This is the first in a series of three papers examining the use of QES in developing clinical and health systems guidelines. METHODS: WHO convened a group of methodologists involved in developing recent (2010-2018) guidelines that were informed by QES. Using a pragmatic and iterative approach that included feedback from WHO staff and other stakeholders, the group reflected on, discussed and identified key methods and research implications from designing QES and using the resulting findings in guideline development. Our aim in this paper is to (1) describe and discuss how the findings of QES can inform the scope of a guideline and (2) develop findings for key guideline decision-making criteria. RESULTS: QES resulted in the addition of new outcomes that are directly relevant to service users, a stronger evidence base for decisions about how much effective interventions and related outcomes are valued by stakeholders in a range of contexts, and a more complete database of summary evidence for guideline panels to consider, linked to decisions about values, acceptability, feasibility and equity. CONCLUSIONS: Rigorously conducted QES can be a powerful means of improving the relevance of guidelines, and of ensuring that the concerns of stakeholders, at all levels of the healthcare system and from a wide range of settings, are taken into account at all stages of the process.

Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) for Guidelines: Paper 3 - Using qualitative evidence syntheses to develop implementation considerations and inform implementation processes.

BACKGROUND: This is the third in a series of three papers describing the use of qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) to inform the development of clinical and health systems guidelines. WHO has recognised the need to improve its guideline methodology to ensure that decision-making processes are transparent and evidence based, and that the resulting recommendations are relevant and applicable to end users. In addition to the standard data on effectiveness, WHO guidelines increasingly use evidence derived from QES to provide information on acceptability and feasibility and to develop important implementation considerations. METHODS: WHO convened a group drawn from the technical teams involved in formulating recent (2010-2018) guidelines employing QES. Using a pragmatic and iterative approach that included feedback from WHO staff and other stakeholders, the group reflected on, discussed and identified key methods and research implications from designing QES and using the resulting findings in guideline development. As members of WHO guideline technical teams, our aim in this paper is to explore how we have used findings from QES to develop implementation considerations for these guidelines. RESULTS: For each guideline, in addition to using systematic reviews of effectiveness, the technical teams used QES to gather evidence of the acceptability and feasibility of interventions and, in some cases, equity issues and the value people place on different outcomes. This evidence was synthesised using standardised processes. The teams then used the QES to identify implementation considerations combined with other sources of information and input from experts. CONCLUSIONS: QES were useful sources of information for implementation considerations. However, several issues for further development remain, including whether researchers should use existing health systems frameworks when developing implementation considerations; whether researchers should take confidence in the evidence into account when developing implementation considerations; whether qualitative evidence that reveals implementation challenges should lead guideline panels to make conditional recommendations or only point to implementation considerations; and whether guideline users find it helpful to have challenges pointed out to them or whether they also need solutions. Finally, we need to explore how QES findings can be incorporated into derivative products to aid implementation.

Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) for Guidelines: Paper 2 - Using qualitative evidence synthesis findings to inform evidence-to-decision frameworks and recommendations.

BACKGROUND: WHO has recognised the need to improve its guideline methodology to ensure that guideline decision-making processes are transparent and evidence based, and that the resulting recommendations are relevant and applicable. To help achieve this, WHO guidelines now typically enhance intervention effectiveness data with evidence on a wider range of decision-making criteria, including how stakeholders value different outcomes, equity, gender and human rights impacts, and the acceptability and feasibility of interventions. Qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) are increasingly used to provide evidence on this wider range of issues. In this paper, we describe and discuss how to use the findings from QES to populate decision-making criteria in evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks. This is the second in a series of three papers that examines the use of QES in developing clinical and health system guidelines. METHODS: WHO convened a writing group drawn from the technical teams involved in its recent (2010-2018) guidelines employing QES. Using a pragmatic and iterative approach that included feedback from WHO staff and other stakeholders, the group reflected on, discussed and identified key methods and research implications from designing QES and using the resulting findings in guideline development. RESULTS: We describe a step-wise approach to populating EtD frameworks with QES findings. This involves allocating findings to the different EtD criteria (how stakeholders value different outcomes, equity, acceptability and feasibility, etc.), weaving the findings into a short narrative relevant to each criterion, and inserting this summary narrative into the corresponding 'research evidence' sections of the EtD. We also identify areas for further methodological research, including how best to summarise and present qualitative data to groups developing guidelines, how these groups draw on different types of evidence in their decisions, and the extent to which our experiences are relevant to decision-making processes in fields other than health. CONCLUSIONS: This paper shows the value of incorporating QES within a guideline development process, and the roles that qualitative evidence can play in integrating the views and experiences of relevant stakeholders, including groups who may not be otherwise represented in the decision-making process.

Effects of the Informed Health Choices primary school intervention on the ability of children in Uganda to assess the reliability of claims about treatment effects: a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Claims about what improves or harms our health are ubiquitous. People need to be able to assess the reliability of these claims. We aimed to evaluate an intervention designed to teach primary school children to assess claims about the effects of treatments (ie, any action intended to maintain or improve health). METHODS: In this cluster-randomised controlled trial, we included primary schools in the central region of Uganda that taught year-5 children (aged 10-12 years). We excluded international schools, special needs schools for children with auditory and visual impairments, schools that had participated in user-testing and piloting of the resources, infant and nursery schools, adult education schools, and schools that were difficult for us to access in terms of travel time. We randomly allocated a representative sample of eligible schools to either an intervention or control group. Intervention schools received the Informed Health Choices primary school resources (textbooks, exercise books, and a teachers' guide). Teachers attended a 2 day introductory workshop and gave nine 80 min lessons during one school term. The lessons addressed 12 concepts essential to assessing claims about treatment effects and making informed health choices. We did not intervene in the control schools. The primary outcome, measured at the end of the school term, was the mean score on a test with two multiple-choice questions for each of the 12 concepts and the proportion of children with passing scores on the same test. This trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry, number PACTR201606001679337. FINDINGS: Between April 11, 2016, and June 8, 2016, 2960 schools were assessed for eligibility; 2029 were eligible, and a random sample of 170 were invited to recruitment meetings. After recruitment meetings, 120 eligible schools consented and were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (n=60, 76 teachers and 6383 children) or control group (n=60, 67 teachers and 4430 children). The mean score in the multiple-choice test for the intervention schools was 62·4% (SD 18·8) compared with 43·1% (15·2) for the control schools (adjusted mean difference 20·0%, 95% CI 17·3-22·7; p<0·00001). In the intervention schools, 3967 (69%) of 5753 children achieved a predetermined passing score (≥13 of 24 correct answers) compared with 1186 (27%) of 4430 children in the control schools (adjusted difference 50%, 95% CI 44-55). The intervention was effective for children with different levels of reading skills, but was more effective for children with better reading skills. INTERPRETATION: The use of the Informed Health Choices primary school learning resources, after an introductory workshop for the teachers, led to a large improvement in the ability of children to assess claims about the effects of treatments. The results show that it is possible to teach primary school children to think critically in schools with large student to teacher ratios and few resources. Future studies should address how to scale up use of the resources, long-term effects, including effects on actual health choices, transferability to other countries, and how to build on this programme with additional primary and secondary school learning resources. FUNDING: Research Council of Norway.

Effects of the Informed Health Choices podcast on the ability of parents of primary school children in Uganda to assess claims about treatment effects: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: As part of the Informed Health Choices project, we developed a podcast called The Health Choices Programme to help improve the ability of people to assess claims about the benefits and harms of treatments. We aimed to evaluate the effects of the podcast on the ability of parents of primary school children in Uganda to assess claims about the effects of treatments. METHODS: We did this randomised controlled trial in central Uganda. We recruited parents of children aged 10-12 years who were in their fifth year of school at 35 schools that were participating in a linked trial of the Informed Health Choices primary school resources. The parents were randomly allocated (1:1), via a web-based random number generator with block sizes of four and six, to listen to either the Informed Health Choices podcast (intervention group) or typical public service announcements about health issues (control group). Randomisation was stratified by parents' highest level of formal education attained (primary school, secondary school, or tertiary education) and the allocation of their children's school in the trial of the primary school resources (intervention vs control). The primary outcome, measured after listening to the entire podcast, was the mean score and the proportion of parents with passing scores on a test with two multiple choice questions for each of nine key concepts essential to assessing claims about treatments (18 questions in total). We did intention-to-treat analyses. This trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry, number PACTR201606001676150. FINDINGS: We recruited parents between July 21, 2016, and Oct 7, 2016. We randomly assigned 675 parents to the podcast group (n=334) or the public service announcement group (n=341); 561 (83%) participants completed follow-up. The mean score for parents in the podcast group was 67·8% (SD 19·6) compared with 52·4% (17·6) in the control group (adjusted mean difference 15·5%, 95% CI 12·5-18·6; p<0·0001). In the podcast group, 203 (71%) of 288 parents had a predetermined passing score (≥11 of 18 correct answers) compared with 103 (38%) of 273 parents in the control group (adjusted difference 34%, 95% CI 26-41; p<0·0001). No adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: Listening to the Informed Health Choices podcast led to a large improvement in the ability of parents to assess claims about the effects of treatments. Future studies should assess the long-term effects of use of the podcast, the effects on actual health choices and outcomes, and how transferable our findings are to other countries. FUNDING: Research Council of Norway.

A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence.

BACKGROUND: A strategy for minimising the time and obstacles to accessing systematic reviews of health system evidence is to collect them in a freely available database and make them easy to find through a simple 'Google-style' search interface. PDQ-Evidence was developed in this way. The objective of this study was to compare PDQ-Evidence to six other databases, namely Cochrane Library, EVIPNet VHL, Google Scholar, Health Systems Evidence, PubMed and Trip. METHODS: We recruited healthcare policy-makers, managers and health researchers in low-, middle- and high-income countries. Participants selected one of six pre-determined questions. They searched for a systematic review that addressed the chosen question and one question of their own in PDQ-Evidence and in two of the other six databases which they would normally have searched. We randomly allocated participants to search PDQ-Evidence first or to search the two other databases first. The primary outcomes were whether a systematic review was found and the time taken to find it. Secondary outcomes were perceived ease of use and perceived time spent searching. We asked open-ended questions about PDQ-Evidence, including likes, dislikes, challenges and suggestions for improvements. RESULTS: A total of 89 people from 21 countries completed the study; 83 were included in the primary analyses and 6 were excluded because of data errors that could not be corrected. Most participants chose PubMed and Cochrane Library as the other two databases. Participants were more likely to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence than using Cochrane Library or PubMed for the pre-defined questions. For their own questions, this difference was not found. Overall, it took slightly less time to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence. Participants perceived that it took less time, and most participants perceived PDQ-Evidence to be slightly easier to use than the two other databases. However, there were conflicting views about the design of PDQ-Evidence. CONCLUSIONS: PDQ-Evidence is at least as efficient as other databases for finding health system evidence. However, using PDQ-Evidence is not intuitive for some people. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was prospectively registered in the ISRCTN registry 17 April 2015. Registration number: ISRCTN12742235 .

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.

Policymaker experiences with rapid response briefs to address health-system and technology questions in Uganda.

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.

Policymakers' and other stakeholders' perceptions of key considerations for health system decisions and the presentation of evidence to inform those considerations: an international survey.

BACKGROUND: The DECIDE framework was developed to support evidence-informed health system decisions through evidence summaries tailored to health policymakers. The objective of this study was to determine policymakers' perceptions regarding the criteria in the DECIDE framework and how best to summarise and present evidence to support health system decisions. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of a diverse group of stakeholders with health system decision experience from 15 countries and the World Health Organization. We asked about perceptions of criteria relevant to making health system decisions, use of evidence, grading systems, and evidence summaries. RESULTS: We received 112 responses (70% response rate). Most respondents had healthcare (85%) and research (79%) experience. They (99%) indicated that systematic consideration of the available evidence would help to improve health system decision-making processes and supported the use of evidence from other countries (94%) and grading systems (81%). All ten criteria in the DECIDE framework were rated as important in the decision-making process. Respondents had divergent views regarding whether the same (38%) or different (45%) grading systems should be used across different types of health decisions. All components of our evidence summary were rated as important by over 90% of respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Survey respondents were supportive of the DECIDE framework for health system decisions and the use of succinct summaries of the estimated size of effects and the quality of evidence. It is uncertain whether the findings of this survey represent the views of policymakers with little or no healthcare and research experience.

Development of a video-based evidence synthesis knowledge translation resource: Drawing on a user-centred design approach.

Objectives: We aimed to develop a video animation knowledge translation (KT) resource to explain the purpose, use and importance of evidence synthesis to the public regarding healthcare decision-making. Methods: We drew on a user-centred design approach to develop a spoken animated video (SAV) by conducting two cycles of idea generation, prototyping, user testing, analysis, and refinement. Six researchers identified the initial key messages of the SAV and informed the first draft of the storyboard and script. Seven members of the public provided input on this draft and the key messages through think-aloud interviews, which we used to develop an SAV prototype. Seven additional members of the public participated in think-aloud interviews while watching the video prototype. All members of the public also completed a questionnaire on perceived usefulness, desirability, clarity and credibility. We subsequently synthesised all data to develop the final SAV. Results: Researchers identified the initial key messages as 1) the importance of evidence synthesis, 2) what an evidence synthesis is and 3) how evidence synthesis can impact healthcare decision-making. Members of the public rated the initial video prototype as 9/10 for usefulness, 8/10 for desirability, 8/10 for clarity and 9/10 for credibility. Using their guidance and feedback, we produced a three-and-a-half-minute video animation. The video was uploaded on YouTube, has since been translated into two languages, and viewed over 12,000 times to date. Conclusions: Drawing on user-centred design methods provided a structured and transparent approach to the development of our SAV. Involving members of the public enhanced the credibility and usefulness of the resource. Future work could explore involving the public from the outset to identify key messages in developing KT resources explaining methodological topics. This study describes the systematic development of a KT resource with limited resources and provides transferrable learnings for others wishing to do similar.

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.

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.

Piloting the informed health choices resources in Barcelona primary schools: A mixed methods study.

INTRODUCTION: The main objective of the Informed Health Choices (IHC) project is to teach people to assess treatment claims and make informed health choices. For this purpose, the IHC learning resources were developed for primary school children. The aim of this study is to explore students' and teachers' experience when using the IHC resources in primary schools in Barcelona (Spain). METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study for piloting the IHC resources in a convenience sample of primary schools in Barcelona. The intervention included a workshop with teachers, and nine lessons with students. We collected data using multiple approaches. We performed quantitative and qualitative analyses, and integrated the findings in a joint display. Finally, we formulated recommendations for using the IHC resources in this setting. RESULTS: Two schools, with a total of 143 students in 4th and 5th grade and six teachers, participated in the study. One school followed the suggested IHC teaching plan and competed all the lessons; the other school modified the plan substantially and did not complete all the lessons. Overall, students and teachers from both schools understood, were interested in, and were able to apply the content of the lessons. During the lessons, the textbook was useful for students; nevertheless, for the teachers, the usefulness of the IHC resources was variable. Teachers adapted the IHC resources to increase student participation and used Information and Communications Technologies tools. We observed more facilitators than barriers to teach the lessons. The teachers suggested some ideas to improve the lessons based on activities they developed and implemented. The integration analysis showed great convergence of the quantitative and qualitative findings. We propose seven recommendations for using the IHC resources in this setting. CONCLUSIONS: Students and teachers from primary schools in Barcelona showed a positive experience when using IHC resources; however, these resources should be adapted to promote classroom participation.

User experiences of structured stakeholder engagement to consider transferability: The TRANSFER approach.

Background: Systematic reviews are increasingly used to inform decision-making in health, education, social care and environmental protection. However, decision makers still experience barriers to using reviews, including not knowing how findings might translate to their own contexts, and lack of collaboration with systematic review authors. The TRANSFER approach is a novel method that aims to support review authors to systematically and transparently collaborate with stakeholders to consider context and the transferability of review findings from the beginning of the review process. Such collaboration is intended to improve the usefulness and relevance of review findings for decision makers. Objectives: We aim to explore the user experience of the TRANSFER approach conversation guide, and in doing so gain a better understanding of the role and perceived value of stakeholder engagement in systematic reviews for informed decision-making. Methods: We conducted four user tests of groups using the guide, organized around simulated meetings between review authors and stakeholders. Review authors led the meeting using the TRANSFER approach conversation guide. We audio-recorded and observed the meetings, collected feedback forms and conducted semi-structured interviews with review authors following the meeting. We analysed the data using framework analysis to examine the user experience of the TRANSFER approach conversation guide and of stakeholder engagement more generally. Results: Seventeen participants in four user groups participated in the user tests. Most participants were generally positive toward the structured approach using the conversation guide, and felt it would be useful in systematic review projects. We observed examples of misunderstanding of the terminology included in the guide, and received multiple suggestions for how to make the conversation guide more user friendly. We observed numerous challenges related to the hypothetical nature of a user test, including lack of familiarity with the review question/topic among participants and lack of preparation for the meeting. Conclusions: Review authors and stakeholders are positive toward using a structured approach to guide collaboration within the context of a systematic review. The TRANSFER conversation guide helps participants to discuss the review question and context in a structured way. Such structured collaboration could help to improve the usefulness and relevance of systematic reviews for decision making by improving the review question, inclusion criteria and consideration of transferability of review findings. The conversation guide needs to be modified to improve user experience. Further research is needed to explore stakeholder collaboration and the use of the TRANSFER conversation guide in systematic review processes.

Feasibility of contextualizing the Informed Health Choices learning resources in Italy: A pilot study in a primary school in Florence.

Background The Informed Health Choices (IHC) project team developed learning resources for primary school children to teach critical thinking about treatments claims and health choices and evaluated their effect in a randomized controlled trial of 120 schools in Uganda. Children taught with these resources showed a better ability to think critically about treatments claims and health choices than children not taught with these resources. Teams in multiple countries are contextualising the IHC resources for use in other languages and settings; in this pilot we describe contextualization for use in Italian primary school.  Methods After translating the IHC resources to Italian and holding an introductory workshop with participating schoolteachers, we piloted the resources with two classes of a primary school in Florence over nine lessons. Our aims were: 1) to assess the feasibility of introducing the IHC curriculum in Italian primary school; 2) to evaluate students' ability to assess health claims and make informed health choices; to explore 3) students' and 4) teachers' experiences with the IHC learning resources; 5) to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation of IHC learning resources in Italian primary school. To assess these objectives, we used qualitative and quantitative methods. Results Both qualitative and quantitative analyses consistently showed that the IHC learning resources had a positive impact on the objectives examined. The resources integrated well into the Italian primary school curriculum. Both students and teachers considered these resources comprehensible, appealing in design and content, and stimulating for the development of a critical attitude. The only barrier teachers and students expressed was using the resources in a remote learning context.  Conclusions Findings from our contextualisation of IHC learning resources in Italian primary school indicate that these resources are well-suited for Italian teachers and students in a primary school context and compatible with the Italian primary school curriculum.