15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Informed health choices intervention to teach primary school children in low-income countries to assess claims about treatment effects: process evaluation

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          We developed the informed health choices (IHC) primary school resources to teach children how to assess the trustworthiness of claims about the effects of treatments. We evaluated these resources in a randomised trial in Uganda. This paper describes the process evaluation that we conducted alongside this trial.

          Objectives

          To identify factors affecting the implementation, impact and scaling up of the intervention; and potential adverse and beneficial effects of the intervention.

          Methods

          All 85 teachers in the 60 schools in the intervention arm of the trial completed a questionnaire after each lesson and at the end of the term. We conducted structured classroom observations at all 60 schools. For interviews and focus groups, we purposively selected six schools. We interviewed district education officers, teachers, head teachers, children and their parents. We used a framework analysis approach to analyse the data.

          Results

          Most of the participants liked the IHC resources and felt that the content was important. This motivated the teachers and contributed to positive attitudes. Although some teachers started out lacking confidence, many found that the children’s enthusiasm for the lessons made them more confident. Nearly everyone interviewed thought that the children learnt something important and many thought that it improved their decision-making. The main barrier to scaling up use of the IHC resources that participants identified was the need to incorporate the lessons into the national curriculum.

          Conclusion

          The mostly positive findings reflect the trial results, which showed large effects on the children’s and the teachers’ critical appraisal skills. The main limitations of this evaluation are that the investigators were responsible for both developing and evaluating the intervention.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series

          The GRADE-CERQual (‘Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research’) approach provides guidance for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from systematic reviews of qualitative research (or qualitative evidence syntheses). The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation. Confidence in the evidence from qualitative evidence syntheses is an assessment of the extent to which a review finding is a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest. CERQual provides a systematic and transparent framework for assessing confidence in individual review findings, based on consideration of four components: (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data, and (4) relevance. A fifth component, dissemination (or publication) bias, may also be important and is being explored. As with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach for effectiveness evidence, CERQual suggests summarising evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative Summary of Qualitative Findings tables. These tables are designed to communicate the review findings and the CERQual assessment of confidence in each finding. This article is the first of a seven-part series providing guidance on how to apply the CERQual approach. In this paper, we describe the rationale and conceptual basis for CERQual, the aims of the approach, how the approach was developed, and its main components. We also outline the purpose and structure of this series and discuss the growing role for qualitative evidence in decision-making. Papers 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in this series discuss each CERQual component, including the rationale for including the component in the approach, how the component is conceptualised, and how it should be assessed. Paper 2 discusses how to make an overall assessment of confidence in a review finding and how to create a Summary of Qualitative Findings table. The series is intended primarily for those undertaking qualitative evidence syntheses or using their findings in decision-making processes but is also relevant to guideline development agencies, primary qualitative researchers, and implementation scientists and practitioners. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0688-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            What about N? A methodological study of sample-size reporting in focus group studies

            Background Focus group studies are increasingly published in health related journals, but we know little about how researchers use this method, particularly how they determine the number of focus groups to conduct. The methodological literature commonly advises researchers to follow principles of data saturation, although practical advise on how to do this is lacking. Our objectives were firstly, to describe the current status of sample size in focus group studies reported in health journals. Secondly, to assess whether and how researchers explain the number of focus groups they carry out. Methods We searched PubMed for studies that had used focus groups and that had been published in open access journals during 2008, and extracted data on the number of focus groups and on any explanation authors gave for this number. We also did a qualitative assessment of the papers with regard to how number of groups was explained and discussed. Results We identified 220 papers published in 117 journals. In these papers insufficient reporting of sample sizes was common. The number of focus groups conducted varied greatly (mean 8.4, median 5, range 1 to 96). Thirty seven (17%) studies attempted to explain the number of groups. Six studies referred to rules of thumb in the literature, three stated that they were unable to organize more groups for practical reasons, while 28 studies stated that they had reached a point of saturation. Among those stating that they had reached a point of saturation, several appeared not to have followed principles from grounded theory where data collection and analysis is an iterative process until saturation is reached. Studies with high numbers of focus groups did not offer explanations for number of groups. Too much data as a study weakness was not an issue discussed in any of the reviewed papers. Conclusions Based on these findings we suggest that journals adopt more stringent requirements for focus group method reporting. The often poor and inconsistent reporting seen in these studies may also reflect the lack of clear, evidence-based guidance about deciding on sample size. More empirical research is needed to develop focus group methodology.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Coverage by the news media of the benefits and risks of medications.

              The news media are an important source of information about new medical treatments, but there is concern that some coverage may be inaccurate and overly enthusiastic. We studied coverage by U.S. news media of the benefits and risks of three medications that are used to prevent major diseases. The medications were pravastatin, a cholesterol-lowering drug for the prevention of cardiovascular disease; alendronate, a bisphosphonate for the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis; and aspirin, which is used for the prevention of cardiovascular disease. We analyzed a systematic probability sample of 180 newspaper articles (60 for each drug) and 27 television reports that appeared between 1994 and 1998. Of the 207 stories, 83 (40 percent) did not report benefits quantitatively. Of the 124 that did, 103 (83 percent) reported relative benefits only, 3 (2 percent) absolute benefits only, and 18 (15 percent) both absolute and relative benefits. Of the 207 stories, 98 (47 percent) mentioned potential harm to patients, and only 63 (30 percent) mentioned costs. Of the 170 stories citing an expert or a scientific study, 85 (50 percent) cited at least one expert or study with a financial tie to a manufacturer of the drug that had been disclosed in the scientific literature. These ties were disclosed in only 33 (39 percent) of the 85 stories. News-media stories about medications may include inadequate or incomplete information about the benefits, risks, and costs of the drugs as well as the financial ties between study groups or experts and pharmaceutical manufacturers.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2019
                11 September 2019
                : 9
                : 9
                : e030787
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentDepartment of Medicine , Makerere University College of Health Sciences , Kampala, Uganda
                [2 ] departmentInstitute of Health and Society , University of Oslo Faculty of Medicine , Oslo, Norway
                [3 ] departmentCentre for Informed Health Choices , Norwegian Institute of Public Health , Oslo, Norway
                [4 ] departmentHealth Systems Research Unit , South African Medical Research Council , Tygerberg, South Africa
                [5 ] Regional Centre for Child and Adolescent Mental Health (Eastern and Southern Norway) , Oslo, Norway
                [6 ] departmentDepartment of Public Health , University of Rwanda , Butare, Rwanda
                [7 ] Tropical Institute of Community Health and Development , Kisumu, Kenya
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Andrew D Oxman; oxman@ 123456online.no
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8702-9217
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0806-213X
                Article
                bmjopen-2019-030787
                10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030787
                6747654
                31511291
                4594c80c-6275-48b9-b848-1504645fe0a4
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 12 April 2019
                : 02 August 2019
                : 02 August 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100005416, Norges Forskningsråd;
                Award ID: 220603/H10
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100004440, Wellcome Trust;
                Award ID: 107742/Z/15/Z
                Categories
                Public Health
                Original Research
                1506
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                process evaluation,critical thinking,critical appraisal,scaling up,teaching,education
                Medicine
                process evaluation, critical thinking, critical appraisal, scaling up, teaching, education

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content120

                Cited by18

                Most referenced authors545