Key Concepts for assessing claims about treatment effects and making well-informed treatment choices

Prioritising Key Concepts for informed health choices in cancer: An evidence-based online educational programme

Objective

The overabundance of health misinformation has undermined people's capacity to make evidence-based, informed choices about their health. Using the Informed Health Choices (IHC) Key Concepts (KCs), we are developing a two-stage education programme, Informed Health Choices-Cancer (IHC-C), to provide those impacted by cancer with the knowledge and skills necessary to think critically about the reliability of health information and claims and make well-informed choices. Stage 1 seeks to prioritise the most relevant Key Concepts.

Methods

A project group and a patient and carer participation group completed a two-round prioritisation process. The process involved disseminating pre-reading materials, training sessions, and a structured judgement form to evaluate concepts for inclusion. Data from each round were analysed to reach a consensus on the concepts to include.

Results

Fourteen participants were recruited and completed the first-round prioritisation. Fifteen participants undertook the second-round prioritisation. Nine Key Concepts were selected for the programme across five training sessions and two consensus meetings.

Conclusion

The prioritised concepts identified represent the most pertinent aspects of cancer-related information for those impacted by the disease. By incorporating these concepts into educational materials and communication strategies, healthcare providers and organisations can potentially help cancer patients, survivors, and their loved ones to recognise and combat cancer-related misinformation more effectively.

Innovation

This study introduces a participatory prioritisation process, which integrates the expertise of healthcare professionals with the insights of patients and carers, thereby enhancing the programme's relevance and applicability.

Development and Evaluation of a Serious Game Application to Engage University Students in Critical Thinking About Health Claims: Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Misleading health claims are widespread in the media, and making choices based on such claims can negatively affect health. Thus, developing effective learning resources to enable people to think critically about health claims is of great value. Serious games can become an effective learning resource in this respect, as they can affect motivation and learning.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to document how user insights and input can inform the concept and development of a serious game application in critical thinking about health claims in addition to gathering user experiences with the game application.

METHODS

This was a mixed methods study in 4 successive phases with both qualitative and quantitative data collected in the period from 2020-2022. Qualitative data on design and development were obtained from 4 unrecorded discussions, and qualitative evaluation data were obtained from 1 recorded focus group interview and 3 open-ended questions in the game application. The quantitative data originate from user statistics. The qualitative data were analyzed thematically, and user data were analyzed using nonparametric tests.

RESULTS

The first unrecorded discussion revealed that the students' (3 participants') assessment of whether a claim was reliable or not was limited to performing Google searches when faced with an ad for a health intervention. On the basis of the acquired knowledge of the target group, the game's prerequisites, and the technical possibilities, a pilot of the game was created and reviewed question by question in 3 unrecorded discussions (6 participants). After adjustments, the game was advertised at the Oslo Metropolitan University, and 193 students tested the game. A correlation (r=0.77; P<.001) was found between the number of replays and total points achieved in the game. There was no demonstrable difference (P=.07) between the total scores of students from different faculties. Overall, 36.3% (70/193) of the students answered the evaluation questions in the game. They used words such as "fun" and "educational" about the experiences with the game, and words such as "motivating" and "engaging" related to the learning experience. The design was described as "varied" and "user-friendly." Suggested improvements include adding references, more games and modules, more difficult questions, and an introductory text explaining the game. The results from the focus group interview (4 participants) corresponded to a large extent with the results of the open-ended questions in the game.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that user insights and inputs can be successfully used in the concept and development of a serious game that aims to engage students to think critically about health claims. The mixed methods evaluation revealed that the users experienced the game as educational and fun. Future research may focus on assessing the effect of the serious game on learning outcomes and health choices in randomized trials.

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.

Evaluating student's ability to assess treatment claims: validating a German version of the Claim Evaluation Tools

BACKGROUND

The Claim Evaluation Tools measure the ability to assess claims about treatment effects. The aim of this study was to adapt the German item sets to the target group of secondary school students (aged 11 to 16 years, grade 6 to 10) and to validate them accordingly. The scale's reliability and validity using Rasch's probabilistic test theory should be determined.

METHODS

We conducted a sequential mixed-method study comprising three stages: contextualisation and adaption of the items (stage 1), piloting of the item sets using qualitative interviews (stage 2) and a construct validation by testing the unidimensional Rasch scalability for each item set after data collection in one secondary school in Germany and two secondary schools in Austria. We explored summary and individual fit statistics and performed a distractor analysis (stage 3).

RESULTS

Secondary school students (n = 6) and their teachers (n = 5) participated in qualitative interviews in Germany. The qualitative interviews identified the need for minor modifications (e.g. reducing thematic repetitions, changing the order of the items). The data of 598 German and Austrian secondary school students were included to test for Rasch scalability. Rasch analyses showed acceptable overall model fit. Distractor analyses suggested that model fit could be improved by simplifying the text in the scenarios, removing and editing response options of some items.

CONCLUSION

After the revision of some items, the questionnaires are suitable to evaluate secondary school students' ability to assess health claims. A future goal is to increase the pool of items being translated and tested.

Development and Piloting of a Web-Based Tool to Teach Relative and Absolute Risk Reductions

Interpreting study results is an essential component of decision-making. Both laypeople and healthcare professionals often misinterpret treatment effects that are presented as relative risk reduction. Therefore, we developed and piloted a web-based tool to teach the difference between relative and absolute risk reductions. This project follows the UKMRC-guidance for complex interventions. The tool was developed based on adult learning and design theories. This was followed by a qualitative feasibility study focusing on acceptance, applicability, and comprehensibility with healthcare professionals and laypersons. We conducted think-aloud and semi-structured interviews and analysed them using qualitative content analysis. In addition, we explored calculation skills. Between January 2020 and April 2021, we conducted 22 interviews with 8 laypeople and 14 healthcare professionals from different settings. Overall, the tool proved to be feasible and relevant. With regard to comprehension, we observed an awareness of the interpretation of risk reduction, presented therapy effects were questioned more critically, and the influence of relative effects was recognized. Nevertheless, there were comprehension problems in some of the participants, especially with calculations in connection with low mathematical skills. The tool can be used to improve the interpretation of risk reductions in various target groups and to supplement existing educational programs.

Prioritising Informed Health Choices Key Concepts for those impacted by cancer: a protocol

Background: Few areas of health have been as insidiously influenced by misinformation as cancer. Thus, interventions that can help people impacted by cancer reduce the extent to which they are victims of misinformation are necessary. The Informed Health Choices (IHC) initiative has developed Key Concepts that can be used in the development of interventions for evaluating the trustworthiness of claims about the effects of health treatments. We are developing an online education programme called Informed Health Choices-Cancer (IHC-C) based on the IHC Key Concepts. We will provide those impacted by cancer with the knowledge and skills necessary to think critically about the reliability of health information and claims and make informed choices. Methods: We will establish a steering group (SG) of 12 key stakeholders, including oncology specialists and academics. In addition, we will establish a patient and public involvement (PPI) panel of 20 people impacted by cancer. After training the members on the Key Concepts and the prioritisation process, we will conduct a two-round prioritisation process. In the first round, 12 SG members and four PPI panel members will prioritise Key Concepts for inclusion. In the second round, the remaining 16 PPI members will undertake the prioritisation based on the prioritised Key Concepts from the first round. Participants in both rounds will use a structured judgement form to rate the importance of the Key Concepts for inclusion in the online IHC-C programme. A consensus meeting will be held, where members will reach a consensus on the Key Concepts to be included and rank the order in which the prioritised Key Concepts will be addressed in the IHC-C programme. Conclusions: At the end of this process, we will identify which Key Concepts should be included and the order in which they should be addressed in the IHC-C programme.

Teaching critical thinking about health using digital technology in lower secondary schools in Rwanda: A qualitative context analysis

Introduction

Adolescents encounter misleading claims about health interventions that can affect their health. Young people need to develop critical thinking skills to enable them to verify health claims and make informed choices. Schools could teach these important life skills, but educators need access to suitable learning resources that are aligned with their curriculum. The overall objective of this context analysis was to explore conditions for teaching critical thinking about health interventions using digital technology to lower secondary school students in Rwanda.

Methods

We undertook a qualitative descriptive study using four methods: document review, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and observations. We reviewed 29 documents related to the national curriculum and ICT conditions in secondary schools. We conducted 8 interviews and 5 focus group discussions with students, teachers, and policy makers. We observed ICT conditions and use in five schools. We analysed the data using a framework analysis approach.

Results

Two major themes found. The first was demand for teaching critical thinking about health. The current curriculum explicitly aims to develop critical thinking competences in students. Critical thinking and health topics are taught across subjects. But understanding and teaching of critical thinking varies among teachers, and critical thinking about health is not being taught. The second theme was the current and expected ICT conditions. Most public schools have computers, projectors, and internet connectivity. However, use of ICT in teaching is limited, due in part to low computer to student ratios.

Conclusions

There is a need for learning resources to develop critical thinking skills generally and critical thinking about health specifically. Such skills could be taught within the existing curriculum using available ICT technologies. Digital resources for teaching critical thinking about health should be designed so that they can be used flexibly across subjects and easily by teachers and students.

The James Lind Initiative: books, websites and databases to promote critical thinking about treatment claims, 2003 to 2018

BACKGROUND

The James Lind Initiative (JLI) was a work programme inaugurated by Iain Chalmers and Patricia Atkinson to press for better research for better health care. It ran between 2003 and 2018, when Iain Chalmers retired. During the 15 years of its existence, the JLI developed three strands of work in collaboration with the authors of this paper, and with others.

WORK THEMES

The first work strand involved developing a process for use by patients, carers and clinicians to identify shared priorities for research - the James Lind Alliance. The second strand was a series of articles, meetings, prizes and other developments to raise awareness of the massive amounts of avoidable waste in research, and of ways of reducing it. The third strand involved using a variety of approaches to promote better public and professional understanding of the importance of research in clinical practice and public health. JLI work on the first two themes has been addressed in previously published reports. This paper summarises JLI involvement during the 15 years of its existence in giving talks, convening workshops, writing books, and creating websites and databases to promote critical thinking about treatment claims.

CONCLUSION

During its 15-year life, the James Lind Initiative worked collaboratively with others to create free teaching and learning resources to help children and adults learn how to recognise untrustworthy claims about the effects of treatments. These resources have been translated in more than twenty languages, but much more could be done to support their uptake and wider use.

Key Concepts for assessing claims about treatment effects and making well-informed treatment choices

Background: The Informed Health Choices (IHC) Key Concepts are standards for judgement, or principles for evaluating the trustworthiness of treatment claims and treatment comparisons (evidence) used to support claims, and for making treatment choices. The list of concepts provides a framework, or starting point, for teachers, journalists and other intermediaries for identifying and developing resources (such as longer explanations, examples, games and interactive applications) to help people to understand and apply the concepts. The first version of the list was published in 2015 and has been updated yearly since then. We report here the changes that have been made from when the list was first published up to the current (2018) version. Methods: We developed the IHC Key Concepts by searching the literature and checklists written for the public, journalists, and health professionals; and by considering concepts related to assessing the certainty of evidence about the effects of treatments. We have revised the Key Concepts yearly, based on feedback and suggestions; and learning from using the IHC Key Concepts, other relevant frameworks, and adaptation of the IHC Key Concepts to other types of interventions besides treatments. Results: We have made many changes since the Key Concepts were first published in 2015. There are now 44 Key Concepts compared to the original 32; the concepts have been reorganised from six to three groups; we have added higher-level concepts in each of those groups; we have added short titles; and we have made changes to many of the concepts. Conclusions: We will continue to revise the IHC Key Concepts in response to feedback. Although we and others have found them helpful since they were first published, we anticipate that there are still ways in which they can be further improved. We welcome suggestions for how to do this.

Key Concepts for assessing claims about treatment effects and making well-informed treatment choices

Background: The Informed Health Choices (IHC) Key Concepts are standards for judgement, or principles for evaluating the trustworthiness of treatment claims and treatment comparisons (evidence) used to support claims, and for making treatment choices. The list of concepts provides a framework, or starting point, for teachers, journalists and other intermediaries for identifying and developing resources (such as longer explanations, examples, games and interactive applications) to help people to understand and apply the concepts. The first version of the list was published in 2015 and has been updated yearly since then. We report here the changes that have been made from when the list was first published up to the current (2018) version. Methods: We developed the IHC Key Concepts by searching the literature and checklists written for the public, journalists, and health professionals; and by considering concepts related to assessing the certainty of evidence about the effects of treatments. We have revised the Key Concepts yearly, based on feedback and suggestions; and learning from using the IHC Key Concepts, other relevant frameworks, and adaptation of the IHC Key Concepts to other types of interventions besides treatments. Results: We have made many changes since the Key Concepts were first published in 2015. There are now 44 Key Concepts compared to the original 32; the concepts have been reorganised from six to three groups; we have added higher-level concepts in each of those groups; we have added short titles; and we have made changes to many of the concepts. Conclusions: The IHC Key Concepts have proven useful in designing learning resources, evaluating them, and organising them. We will continue to revise the IHC Key Concepts in response to feedback. We welcome suggestions for how to do this.