Dataset Information

Informed Health Choices media intervention for improving people's ability to critically appraise the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects: a mixed-methods process evaluation of a randomised trial in Uganda.

ABSTRACT: We developed the Informed Health Choices podcast to improve people's ability to assess claims about the effects of treatments. We evaluated the effects of the podcast in a randomised trial.

Objectives

We conducted this process evaluation to assess the fidelity of the intervention, identify factors that affected the implementation and impact of the intervention and could affect scaling up, and identify potential adverse and beneficial effects.

Setting

The study was conducted in central Uganda in rural, periurban and urban settings.

Participants

We collected data on parents who were in the intervention arm of the Informed Health Choices study that evaluated an intervention to improve parents' ability to assess treatment effects.

Procedures

We conducted 84 semistructured interviews during the intervention, 19 in-depth interviews shortly after, two focus group discussions with parents, one focus group discussion with research assistants and two in-depth interviews with the principal investigators. We used framework analysis to manage qualitative data, assessed the certainty of the findings using the GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research) approach, and organised findings in a logic model.

Outcomes

Proportion of participants listening to all episodes; factors influencing the implementation of the podcast; ways to scale up and any adverse and beneficial effects.

Results

All participants who completed the study listened to the podcast as intended, perhaps because of the explanatory design and recruitment of parents with a positive attitude. This was also likely facilitated by the podcast being delivered by research assistants, and providing the participants with MP3 players. The podcast was reportedly clear, understandable, credible and entertaining, which motivated them to listen and eased implementation. No additional adverse effects were reported.

Conclusions

Participants experienced the podcast positively and were motivated to engage with it. These findings help to explain the short-term effectiveness of the intervention, but not the decrease in effectiveness over the following year.

SUBMITTER: Semakula D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6937069 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionEarlier, we designed and evaluated an educational mass media intervention for improving people's ability to think more critically and to assess the trustworthiness of claims (assertions) about the benefits and harms (effects) of treatments. The overall aims of this follow-up study were to evaluate the impact of our intervention 1 year after it was administered, and to assess retention of learning and behaviour regarding claims about treatments.MethodsWe randomly allocated consenting parents to listen to either the Informed Health Choices podcast (intervention) or typical public service announcements about health issues (control) over 7-10 weeks. Each intervention episode explained how the trustworthiness of treatment claims can be assessed by using relevant key concepts of evidence-informed decision-making. Participants listened to two episodes per week, delivered by research assistants. We evaluated outcomes immediately, and a year after the intervention. Primary outcomes were mean score and the proportion with a score indicating a basic ability to apply the key concepts (>?11 out of 18 correct answers) on a tool measuring people's ability to critically appraise the trustworthiness of treatment claims. Skills decay/retention was estimated by calculating the relative difference between the follow-up and initial results in the intervention group, adjusting for chance. Statistical analyses were performed using R (R Core Team, Vienna, Austria; version 3.4.3).ResultsAfter 1 year, the mean score for parents in the intervention group was 58.9% correct answers, compared to 52.6% in the control (adjusted mean difference of 6.7% (95% CI 3.3% to 10.1%)). In the intervention group, 47.2% of 267 parents had a score indicating a basic ability to assess treatment claims compared to 39.5% of 256 parents in the control (adjusted difference of 9.8% more parents (95% CI 0.9% to 18.9%). These represent relative reductions of 29% in the mean scores and 33% in the proportion of parents with a score indicating a basic ability to assess the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects.ConclusionsAlthough listening to the Informed Health Choices podcast initially led to a large improvement in the ability of parents to assess claims about the effects of treatments, our findings show that these skills decreased substantially over 1 year. More active practice could address the substantial skills decay observed over 1 year.Trial registrationPan African Clinical Trial Registry (www.pactr.org), PACTR201606001676150. Registered on 12 June 2016.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The ability to appraise claims about the benefits and harms of treatments is crucial for informed health care decision-making. This research aims to enable children in East African primary schools (the clusters) to acquire and retain skills that can help them make informed health care choices by improving their ability to obtain, process and understand health information. The trial will evaluate (at the individual participant level) whether specially designed learning resources can teach children some of the key concepts relevant to appraising claims about the benefits and harms of health care interventions (treatments). METHODS:This is a two-arm, cluster-randomised trial with stratified random allocation. We will recruit 120 primary schools (the clusters) between April and May 2016 in the central region of Uganda. We will stratify participating schools by geographical setting (rural, semi-urban, or urban) and ownership (public or private). The Informed Healthcare Choices (IHC) primary school resources consist of a textbook and a teachers' guide. Each of the students in the intervention arm will receive a textbook and attend nine lessons delivered by their teachers during a school term, with each lesson lasting 80 min. The lessons cover 12 key concepts that are relevant to assessing claims about treatments and making informed health care choices. The second arm will carry on with the current primary school curriculum. We have designed the Claim Evaluation Tools to measure people's ability to apply key concepts related to assessing claims about the effects of treatments and making informed health care choices. The Claim Evaluation Tools use multiple choice questions addressing each of the 12 concepts covered by the IHC school resources. Using the Claim Evaluation Tools we will measure two primary outcomes: (1) the proportion of children who 'pass', based on an absolute standard and (2) their average scores. DISCUSSION:As far as we are aware this is the first randomised trial to assess whether key concepts needed to judge claims about the effects of treatment can be taught to primary school children. Whatever the results, they will be relevant to learning how to promote critical thinking about treatment claims. Trial status: the recruitment of study participants was ongoing at the time of manuscript submission. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Pan African Clinical Trial Registry, trial identifier: PACTR201606001679337 . Registered on 13 June 2016.

Project description:IntroductionWe evaluated an intervention designed to teach 10- to 12-year-old primary school children to assess claims about the effects of treatments (any action intended to maintain or improve health). We report outcomes measured 1 year after the intervention.MethodsIn this cluster-randomised trial, we included primary schools in the central region of Uganda that taught year 5 children (aged 10 to 12?years). 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). The primary outcomes, measured at the end of the school term and again after 1 year, were 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.ResultsWe assessed 2960 schools 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 schools; 76 teachers and 6383 children) or the control group (n =?60 schools; 67 teachers and 4430 children). After 1 year, the mean score in the multiple-choice test for the intervention schools was 68.7% compared with 53.0% for the control schools (adjusted mean difference 16.7%; 95% CI, 13.9 to 19.5; P <?0.00001). In the intervention schools, 3160 (80.1%) of 3943 children who completed the test after 1 year achieved a predetermined passing score (??13 of 24 correct answers) compared with 1464 (51.5%) of 2844 children in the control schools (adjusted difference, 39.5%; 95% CI, 29.9 to 47.5).ConclusionUse of the learning resources led to a large improvement in the ability of children to assess claims, which was sustained for at least 1 year.Trial registrationPan African Clinical Trial Registry (www.pactr.org), PACTR201606001679337. Registered on 13 June 2016.