The Norwegian public's ability to assess treatment claims: results of a cross-sectional study of critical health literacy

Key concepts for informed health choices: Where's the evidence?

Background

The Informed Health Choices (IHC) Key Concepts is a framework that provides a basis for developing educational resources and evaluating people's ability to think critically about health actions. We developed the original Key Concepts framework by reviewing texts and checklists for the public, journalists, and health professionals and collecting structured feedback from an international advisory group. We revised the original 2015 framework yearly from 2016 to 2018 based on feedback and experience using the framework. The objectives of this paper are to describe the development of the framework since 2018 and summarise their basis.

Methods

For the 2019 version, we responded to feedback on the 2018 version. For the current 2022 version, in addition to responding to feedback on the 2019 version, we reviewed the evidence base for each of the concepts. Whenever possible, we referenced systematic reviews that provide a basis for a concept. We screened all Cochrane methodology reviews and searched Epistemonikos, PubMed, and Google Scholar for methodology reviews and meta-epidemiological studies.

Results

The original framework included 32 concepts in six groups. The 2019 version and the current 2022 version include 49 concepts in the same three main groups that we have used since 2016. There are now 10 subgroups or higher-level concepts. For each concept, there is an explanation including one or more examples, the basis for the concept, and implications. Over 600 references are cited that support the concepts, and over half of the references are systematic reviews.

Conclusions

There is a large body of evidence that supports the IHC key concepts and we have received few suggestions for changes since 2019.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.