Dataset Information

Randomised trial on effect of involving media reporters in salt reduction programme to increase media reports and the public's knowledge, belief and behaviors on salt and health: Changzhi reporters trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the effects of a novel mass media intervention in increasing media reports on salt and health by involving media reporters in a scientifically well designed salt reduction trial.

Methods

We recruited and trained 66 media reporters in Changzhi, Shanxi province, China to conduct a randomized controlled trial on blood pressure lowering effect of salt substitute in Dec, 2012 and Jan 2013 among their own relatives or friends (253 from 129 families in the salt substitute arm and 263 from 133 families in the control arm for two months). We shared trial results and other information on salt and health with the reporters within a month after the trial. We monitored all local newspapers for the number of relevant articles in 3 months before, 3 months during and 3 months after the intervention and at the 6th, 12th, 18th, 24th and 48th months after the intervention. Additionally, we conducted two independent surveys on knowledge, belief and behaviours of salt and health among local citizens before and after the intervention.

Results

As expected, systolic blood pressure was reduced significantly more in the salt substitute than the control group (-4.7±11.0 mmHg vs -2.6±10.3 mmHg, p<0.001) in the randomized trial. The monthly mean number of relevant articles increased from 0.7 before to 1.7 during (p = 0.263), and further to 6.0 after the intervention (p<0.001), and varied from 2 (p = 0.170) to 4 (p = 0.008) from the 6th to 48th month; the awareness of knowledge on salt and health among local citizens improved significantly after the intervention.

Conclusions

Media reporters' participation in a well-designed salt reduction trial significantly increased the number of relevant media reports, and the effect was sustained for a prolonged period. Future mass media public health education programs should consider this innovative strategy for better and sustained impacts.

SUBMITTER: Li Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8294101 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The CONSORT 2010 statement provides minimum guidelines for reporting randomized trials. Its widespread use has been instrumental in ensuring transparency in the evaluation of new interventions. More recently, there has been a growing recognition that interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) need to undergo rigorous, prospective evaluation to demonstrate impact on health outcomes. The CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence) extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trials evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for clinical trial protocols: SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-Artificial Intelligence). Both guidelines were developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation to generate 29 candidate items, which were assessed by an international multi-stakeholder group in a two-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed upon in a two-day consensus meeting (31 stakeholders) and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants). The CONSORT-AI extension includes 14 new items that were considered sufficiently important for AI interventions that they should be routinely reported in addition to the core CONSORT 2010 items. CONSORT-AI recommends that investigators provide clear descriptions of the AI intervention, including instructions and skills required for use, the setting in which the AI intervention is integrated, the handling of inputs and outputs of the AI intervention, the human-AI interaction and provision of an analysis of error cases. CONSORT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness in reporting clinical trials for AI interventions. It will assist editors and peer reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret and critically appraise the quality of clinical trial design and risk of bias in the reported outcomes.

Project description:The CONSORT 2010 statement provides minimum guidelines for reporting randomised trials. Its widespread use has been instrumental in ensuring transparency in the evaluation of new interventions. More recently, there has been a growing recognition that interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) need to undergo rigorous, prospective evaluation to demonstrate impact on health outcomes. The CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence) extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trials evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for clinical trial protocols: SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-Artificial Intelligence). Both guidelines were developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation to generate 29 candidate items, which were assessed by an international multi-stakeholder group in a two-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed upon in a two-day consensus meeting (31 stakeholders), and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants). The CONSORT-AI extension includes 14 new items that were considered sufficiently important for AI interventions that they should be routinely reported in addition to the core CONSORT 2010 items. CONSORT-AI recommends that investigators provide clear descriptions of the AI intervention, including instructions and skills required for use, the setting in which the AI intervention is integrated, the handling of inputs and outputs of the AI intervention, the human-AI interaction and provision of an analysis of error cases. CONSORT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness in reporting clinical trials for AI interventions. It will assist editors and peer reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret, and critically appraise the quality of clinical trial design and risk of bias in the reported outcomes.

Project description:ImportanceException From Informed Consent (EFIC) research requires community consultation (CC) and public disclosure (PD). Traditional methods of conducting CC and PD are slow, expensive, and labor intensive.ObjectiveTo describe the feasibility and reach of a novel interactive, media-based approach to CC and PD and to identify the similarities and differences between trial sites in website views, survey responses, online community forum attendance, and opt-out requests.Design, setting, and participantsThis survey study analyzed the CC and PD campaigns conducted for the TAP trial (Evaluation of BE1116 in Patients With Traumatic Injury and Acute Major Bleeding to Improve Survival), an EFIC trial of the early administration of prothrombin complex concentrate in patients with trauma. The CC and PD campaigns consisted of social media advertisements, linked websites, community surveys, and online community forums. These activities were coordinated from a central site and approved by a central institutional review board. This study focused on the first 52 of 91 TAP trial sites (level I trauma centers) in the US to have completed their CC and PD campaigns. Community members in the catchment areas of the participating trauma centers were targeted. Data analysis was conducted between October 2023 and February 2024.ExposureSocial media advertisements, surveys, and online community meetings conducted as part of the CC and PD campaign for the TAP trial.Main outcomes and measuresSocial media campaign reach and engagement, web page views, survey results, online community forum attendance, and opt-out requests.ResultsFifty-two trial sites were approved for participant enrollment. Social media advertisements were displayed 92 million times, reaching 11.8 million individuals. The median (IQR) number of people reached in each location was 210 317 (172 068-276 968). Site-specific websites were viewed 144 197 times (median [IQR] viewings per site, 2984 [1267-4038]). A total of 17 206 fully or partly completed surveys were received, and survey respondents had a median (IQR) age of 40.1 (15-65) years and included 10 444 females (60.7%). Overall, 60.6% survey respondents said they would want to be entered into the trial even if they could not give consent, 87.7% agreed that emergency care research was necessary, and 88.0% agreed that the TAP trial should be conducted in their community. Online community forums were attended by a median (IQR) number of 38 (20-63) people. Four opt-out requests were received.Conclusions and relevanceThe interactive media-based approach to CC and PD for the ongoing TAP trial showed the feasibility and benefits of executing an efficient, coordinated, centrally run series of locally branded and geographically targeted CC and PD campaigns for a large EFIC study.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Social media are an increasingly commonly used platform for delivering health promotion interventions. Although recent research has focused on the effectiveness of social media interventions for health promotion, very little is known about the optimal content within such interventions, and the active ingredients to promote health behavior change using social media are not clear. Identifying which behavior change techniques (BCTs) are reported may help to clarify the content of interventions using a generalizable terminology that may facilitate future intervention development. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to identify which BCTs are reported in social media interventions for promoting health behavior change in adults. METHODS:We included 71 studies conducted with adult participants (aged ?18 years) and for which social media intervention was considered interactive in a Cochrane review of the effectiveness of such interventions. We developed a coding manual informed by the Behavior Change Technique Taxonomy version 1 (BCTTv1) to identify BCTs in the included studies. We identified BCTs in all study arms (including control) and described BCTs in the group and self-directed components of studies. We characterized the dose of delivery for each BCT by low and high intensity. We used descriptive analyses to characterize the reported BCTs. RESULTS:Our data consisted of 71 studies published from 2001 to 2017, mainly conducted in high-income countries (n=65). Most studies (n=31) used tailored, interactive websites to deliver the intervention; Facebook was the most used mainstream platform. In developing our coding manual, we adapted some BCTTv1 instructions to better capture unique nuances of how BCTs were operationalized in social media with respect to likes, retweets, smiles, congratulations, and badges. Social support (unspecified), instruction on how to perform the behavior, and credible source were most frequently identified BCTs in intervention arms of studies and group-delivery settings, whereas instruction on how to perform the behavior was most commonly applied in self-directed components of studies, control arms, and individual participant settings. Instruction on how to perform the behavior was also the most frequently reported BCT in both intervention and control arms simultaneously. Instruction on how to perform the behavior, social support (unspecified), self-monitoring of behavior, information about health consequences, and credible source were identified in the top 5 BCTs delivered with the highest intensity. CONCLUSIONS:This study within a review provides a detailed description of the BCTs and their dose to promote behavior change in web-based, interactive social media interventions. Clarifying active ingredients in social media interventions and the intensity of their delivery may help to develop future interventions that can more clearly build upon the existing evidence.

Project description:BackgroundRandomised trials are considered the gold standard in providing robust evidence on the effectiveness of interventions. However, there are relatively few initiatives to help increase public understanding of what randomised trials are and why they are important. This limits the overall acceptance of and public participation in clinical trials. The People's Trial aims to help the public learn about randomised trials, to understand why they matter, and to be better equipped to think critically about health claims by actively involving them in all aspects of trial design. This was done by involving the public in the design, conduct, and dissemination of a randomised trial.MethodsUsing a reflexive approach, we describe the processes of development, conduct, and dissemination of The People's Trial.ResultsOver 3000 members of the public, from 72 countries, participated in The People's Trial. Through a series of online surveys, the public designed a trial called The Reading Trial. They chose the question the trial would try to answer and decided the components of the trial question. In December 2019, 991 participants were recruited to a trial to answer the question identified and prioritised by the public, i.e. 'Does reading a book in bed make a difference to sleep in comparison with not reading a book in bed?' We report the processes of The People's Trial in seven phases, paralleling the steps of a randomised trial, i.e. question identification and prioritisation, recruitment, randomisation, trial conduct, data analysis, and sharing of findings. We describe the decisions we made, the processes we used, the challenges we encountered, and the lessons we learned.ConclusionThe People's Trial involved the public successfully in the design, conduct, and dissemination of a randomised trial demonstrating the potential for such initiatives to help the public learn about randomised trials, to understand why they matter, and to be better equipped to think critically about health claims.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04185818 . Registered on 4 December 2019.