Establishing a library of resources to help people understand key concepts in assessing treatment claims-The "Critical thinking and Appraisal Resource Library" (CARL)

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.

Strategies for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and the population: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Health evidence needs to be communicated and disseminated in a manner that is clearly understood by decision-makers. As an inherent component of health knowledge translation, communicating results of scientific studies, effects of interventions and health risk estimates, in addition to understanding key concepts of clinical epidemiology and interpreting evidence, represent a set of essential instruments to reduce the gap between science and practice. The advancement of digital and social media has reshaped the concept of health communication, introducing new, direct and powerful communication platforms and gateways between researchers and the public. The objective of this scoping review was to identify strategies for communicating scientific evidence in healthcare to managers and/or population.

METHODS

We searched Cochrane Library, Embase®, MEDLINE® and other six electronic databases, in addition to grey literature, relevant websites from related organizations for studies, documents or reports published from 2000, addressing any strategy for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and/or population.

RESULTS

Our search identified 24 598 unique records, of which 80 met the inclusion criteria and addressed 78 strategies. Most strategies focused on risk and benefit communication in health, were presented by textual format and had been implemented and somehow evaluated. Among the strategies evaluated and appearing to yield some benefit are (i) risk/benefit communication: natural frequencies instead of percentages, absolute risk instead relative risk and number needed to treat, numerical instead nominal communication, mortality instead survival; negative or loss content appear to be more effective than positive or gain content; (ii) evidence synthesis: plain languages summaries to communicate the results of Cochrane reviews to the community were perceived as more reliable, easier to find and understand, and better to support decisions than the original summaries; (iii) teaching/learning: the Informed Health Choices resources seem to be effective for improving critical thinking skills.

CONCLUSION

Our findings contribute to both the knowledge translation process by identifying communication strategies with potential for immediate implementation and to future research by recognizing the need to evaluate the clinical and social impact of other strategies to support evidence-informed policies. Trial registration protocol is prospectively available in MedArxiv (doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.04.21265922).

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.

Knowledge and attitudes towards clinical trials among women with ovarian cancer: results of the ACTO study

BACKGROUND

Despite several initiatives by research groups, regulatory authorities, and scientific associations to engage citizens/patients in clinical research, there are still obstacles to participation. Among the main discouraging aspects are incomplete understanding of the concepts related to a clinical trial, and the scant, sometimes confused, explanations given. This observational, cross-sectional multicenter study investigated knowledge, attitudes and trust in clinical research. We conducted a survey among women with ovarian cancer at their first follow-up visit or first therapy session, treated in centers belonging to the Mario Negri Gynecologic Oncology (MaNGO) and Multicenter Italian Trials in Ovarian Cancer (MITO) groups. A questionnaire on knowledge, attitudes and experience was assembled ad hoc after a literature review and a validation process involving patients of the Alliance against Ovarian Cancer (ACTO).

RESULTS

From 25 centers 348 questionnaire were collected; 73.5% of responders were 56 years or older, 54.8% had a high level of education, more than 80% had no experience of trial participation. Among participants 59% knew what clinical trials were and 71% what informed consent was. However, more than half did not know the meaning of the term randomization. More than half (56%) were in favor of participating in a clinical trial, but 35% were not certain. Almost all responders acknowledged the doctor's importance in decision-making. Patients' associations were recognized as having a powerful role in the design and planning of clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

This study helps depict the knowledge and attitudes of women with ovarian cancer in relation to clinical trials, suggesting measures aimed at improving trial "culture", literacy and compliance, and fresh ways of communication between doctors and patients.

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

Background: Few studies have evaluated the ability of the general public to assess the trustworthiness of claims about the effects of healthcare. For the most part, those studies have used self-reported measures of critical health literacy. Methods: We mailed 4500 invitations to Norwegian adults. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of four online questionnaires that included multiple-choice questions that test understanding of Key Concepts people need to understand to assess healthcare claims. They also included questions about intended behaviours and self-efficacy. One of the four questionnaires was identical to one previously used in two randomised trials of educational interventions in Uganda, facilitating comparisons to Ugandan children, parents, and teachers. We adjusted the results using demographic data to reflect the population. Results: A total of 771 people responded. The adjusted proportion of Norwegian adults who answered correctly was < 50% for 17 of the 30 Key Concepts. On the other hand, less than half answered correctly for 13 concepts. The results for Norwegian adults were better than the results for Ugandan children in the intervention arm of the trial and parents, and similar to those of Ugandan teachers in the intervention arm of the trial. Based on self-report, most Norwegians are likely to find out the basis of treatment claims, but few consider it easy to assess whether claims are based on research and to assess the trustworthiness of research. Conclusions: Norwegian adults do not understand many concepts that are essential for assessing healthcare claims and making informed choices. Future interventions should be tailored to address Key Concepts for which there appears to be a lack of understanding.

Communicating Uncertainty in Written Consumer Health Information to the Public: Parallel-Group, Web-Based Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Uncertainty is integral to evidence-informed decision making and is of particular importance for preference-sensitive decisions. Communicating uncertainty to patients and the public has long been identified as a goal in the informed and shared decision-making movement. Despite this, there is little quantitative research on how uncertainty in health information is perceived by readers.

Objective

The aim of this study was to examine the impact of different uncertainty descriptions regarding the evidence for a treatment effect in a written research summary for the public.

Methods

We developed 8 versions of a research summary on a fictitious drug for tinnitus with varying degrees (Q1), sources (Q2), and magnitudes of uncertainty (Q3). We recruited 2099 members of the German public from a web-based research panel. Of these, 1727 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were randomly presented with one of these research summaries. Randomization was conducted by using a centralized computer with a random number generator. Web-based recruitment and data collection were fully automated. Participants were not aware of the purpose of the study and alternative presentations. We measured the following outcomes: perception of the treatment effectiveness (primary), certainty in the judgement of treatment effectiveness, perception of the body of evidence, text quality, and intended decision. The outcomes were self-assessed.

Results

For the primary outcome, we did not find a global effect for Q1 and Q2 (P=.25 and P=.73), but we found a global effect for Q3 (P=.048). Pairwise comparisons showed a weaker perception of treatment effectiveness for the research summary with 3 sources of uncertainty compared to the version with 2 sources of uncertainty (P=.04). Specifically, the proportion of the participants in the group with 3 sources of uncertainty that perceived the drug as possibly beneficial was 9% lower than that of the participants in the group with 2 sources of uncertainty (92/195, 47.2% vs 111/197, 56.3%, respectively). The proportion of the participants in the group with 3 sources of uncertainty that considered the drug to be of unclear benefit was 8% higher than that of the participants in the group with 2 sources of uncertainty (72/195, 36.9% vs 57/197, 28.9%, respectively). However, there was no significant difference compared to the version with 1 source of uncertainty (P=.31). We did not find any meaningful differences between the research summaries for the secondary outcomes.

Conclusions

Communicating even a large magnitude of uncertainty for a treatment effect had little impact on the perceived effectiveness. Efforts to improve public understanding of research are needed to improve the understanding of evidence-based health information.

Trial Registration

German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00015911, https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00015911

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/13425

Development of the informed health choices resources in four countries to teach primary school children to assess claims about treatment effects: a qualitative study employing a user-centred approach

Background

People of all ages are flooded with health claims about treatment effects (benefits and harms of treatments). Many of these are not reliable, and many people lack skills to assess their reliability. Primary school is the ideal time to begin to teach these skills, to lay a foundation for continued learning and enable children to make well-informed health choices, as they grow older. However, these skills are rarely being taught and yet there are no rigorously developed and evaluated resources for teaching these skills.

Objectives

To develop the Informed Health Choices (IHC) resources (for learning and teaching people to assess claims about the effects of treatments) for primary school children and teachers.

Methods

We prototyped, piloted, and user-tested resources in four settings that included Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, and Norway. We employed a user-centred approach to designing IHC resources which entailed multiple iterative cycles of development (determining content scope, generating ideas, prototyping, testing, analysing and refining) based on continuous close collaboration with teachers and children.

Results

We identified 24 Key Concepts that are important for children to learn. We developed a comic book and a separate exercise book to introduce and explain the Key Concepts to the children, combining lessons with exercises and classroom activities. We developed a teachers' guide to supplement the resources for children.

Conclusion

By employing a user-centred approach to designing resources to teach primary children to think critically about treatment claims and choices, we developed learning resources that end users experienced as useful, easy to use and well-suited to use in diverse classroom settings.

Effects of the Informed Health Choices podcast on the ability of parents of primary school children in Uganda to assess the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects: one-year follow up of a randomised trial

INTRODUCTION

Earlier, 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.

METHODS

We 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).

RESULTS

After 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.

CONCLUSIONS

Although 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 REGISTRATION

Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (www.pactr.org), PACTR201606001676150. Registered on 12 June 2016.

Effects of the Informed Health Choices primary school intervention on the ability of children in Uganda to assess the reliability of claims about treatment effects, 1-year follow-up: a cluster-randomised trial

INTRODUCTION

We 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.

METHODS

In 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.

RESULTS

We 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).

CONCLUSION

Use 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 REGISTRATION

Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (www.pactr.org), PACTR201606001679337. Registered on 13 June 2016.

Development of mass media resources to improve the ability of parents of primary school children in Uganda to assess the trustworthiness of claims about the effects of treatments: a human-centred design approach

BACKGROUND

Claims about what we need to do to improve our health are everywhere. Most interventions simply tell people what to do, and do not empower them to critically assess health information. Our objective was to design mass media resources to enable the public to critically appraise the trustworthiness of claims about the benefits and harms of treatments and make informed health choices.

METHODS

Research was conducted between 2013 and 2016 across multiple iterative phases. Participants included researchers, journalists, parents, other members of the public. First, we developed a list of 32 key concepts that people need to understand to be able to assess the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects. Next, we used a human-centred design approach, to generate ideas for resources for teaching the key concepts, and developed and user-tested prototypes through qualitative interviews. We addressed identified problems and repeated this process until we had a product that was deemed relevant and desirable by our target audience, and feasible to implement.

RESULTS

We generated over 160 ideas, mostly radio-based. After prototyping some of these, we found that a podcast produced collaboratively by health researchers and journalists was the most promising approach. We developed eight episodes of the Informed Health Choices podcast, a song on critical thinking about treatments and a reminder checklist. Early versions of the podcast were reportedly too long, boring and confusing. We shortened the episodes, included one key concept per episode, and changed to story-telling with skits. The final version of the podcast was found to be useful, understandable, credible and desirable.

CONCLUSION

We found many problems with various prototypes of mass media resources. Using a human-centred design approach, we overcame those problems. We have developed a guide to help others prepare similar podcasts.

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.

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.

Core Competencies in Evidence-Based Practice for Health Professionals: Consensus Statement Based on a Systematic Review and Delphi Survey

IMPORTANCE

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is necessary for improving the quality of health care as well as patient outcomes. Evidence-based practice is commonly integrated into the curricula of undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing professional development health programs. There is, however, inconsistency in the curriculum content of EBP teaching and learning programs. A standardized set of minimum core competencies in EBP that health professionals should meet has the potential to standardize and improve education in EBP.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a consensus set of core competencies for health professionals in EBP.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

For this modified Delphi survey study, a set of EBP core competencies that should be covered in EBP teaching and learning programs was developed in 4 stages: (1) generation of an initial set of relevant EBP competencies derived from a systematic review of EBP education studies for health professionals; (2) a 2-round, web-based Delphi survey of health professionals, selected using purposive sampling, to prioritize and gain consensus on the most essential EBP core competencies; (3) consensus meetings, both face-to-face and via video conference, to finalize the consensus on the most essential core competencies; and (4) feedback and endorsement from EBP experts.

FINDINGS

From an earlier systematic review of 83 EBP educational intervention studies, 86 unique EBP competencies were identified. In a Delphi survey of 234 participants representing a range of health professionals (physicians, nurses, and allied health professionals) who registered interest (88 [61.1%] women; mean [SD] age, 45.2 [10.2] years), 184 (78.6%) participated in round 1 and 144 (61.5%) in round 2. Consensus was reached on 68 EBP core competencies. The final set of EBP core competencies were grouped into the main EBP domains. For each key competency, a description of the level of detail or delivery was identified.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

A consensus-based, contemporary set of EBP core competencies has been identified that may inform curriculum development of entry-level EBP teaching and learning programs for health professionals and benchmark standards for EBP teaching.

Educational interventions to improve people's understanding of key concepts in assessing the effects of health interventions: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Health information is readily accessible but is of variable quality. General knowledge about how to assess whether claims about health interventions are trustworthy is not common, so people's health decisions can be ill-informed, unnecessarily costly and even unsafe. This review aims to identify and evaluate studies of educational interventions designed to improve people's understanding of key concepts for evaluating claims about the effects of health interventions.

METHODS/DESIGN

We searched multiple electronic databases and sources of grey literature. Inclusion criteria included all study types that included a comparison, any participants (except health professionals or health professional students) and educational interventions aimed at improving people's understanding of one or more of the key concepts considered necessary for assessing health intervention claims. Knowledge and/or understanding of concepts or skills relevant to evaluating health information were our primary outcome measures. Secondary outcomes included behaviour, confidence, attitude and satisfaction with the educational interventions. Two authors independently screened search results, assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. Results were summarised using descriptive synthesis.

RESULTS

Among 24 eligible studies, 14 were randomised trials and 10 used other study designs. There was heterogeneity across study participants, settings and educational intervention type, content and delivery. The risk of bias was high in at least one domain for all randomised studies. Most studies measured outcomes immediately after the educational intervention, with few measuring later. In most of the comparisons, measures of knowledge and skills were better among those who had received educational interventions than among controls, and some of these differences were statistically significant. The effects on secondary outcomes were inconsistent.

CONCLUSIONS

Educational interventions to improve people's understanding of key concepts for evaluating health intervention claims can improve people's knowledge and skills, at least in the short term. Effects on confidence, attitude and behaviour are uncertain. Many of the studies were at moderate or greater risk of bias. Improvements in study quality, consistency of outcome measures and measures of longer-term effects are needed to improve confidence in estimates of the effects of educational interventions to improve people's understanding of key concepts for evaluating health intervention claims.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016033103.

Key Concepts for Informed Health Choices: a framework for helping people learn how to assess treatment claims and make informed choices

Many claims about the effects of treatments, though well intentioned, are wrong. Indeed, they are sometimes deliberately misleading to serve interests other than the well-being of patients and the public. People need to know how to spot unreliable treatment claims so that they can protect themselves and others from harm. The ability to assess the trustworthiness of treatment claims is often lacking. Acquiring this ability depends on being familiar with, and correctly applying, some key concepts, for example, that' association is not the same as causation.' The Informed Health Choices (IHC) Project has identified 36 such concepts and shown that people can be taught to use them in decision making. A randomised trial in Uganda, for example, showed that primary school children with poor reading skills could be taught to apply 12 of the IHC Key Concepts. The list of IHC Key Concepts has proven to be effective in providing a framework for developing and evaluating IHC resources to help children to think critically about treatment claims. The list also provides a framework for retrieving, coding and organising other teaching and learning materials for learners of any age. It should help teachers, researchers, clinicians, and patients to structure critical thinking about the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects.

Completeness of the reporting of evidence-based practice educational interventions: a review

CONTEXT

Complete reporting of intervention details in trials of evidence-based practice (EBP) educational interventions is essential to enable clinical educators to translate research evidence about interventions that have been shown to be effective into practice. In turn, this will improve the quality of EBP education.

OBJECTIVES

This study was designed to examine the completeness of reporting of EBP educational interventions in published studies and to assess whether missing details of educational interventions could be retrieved by searching additional sources and contacting study authors.

METHODS

A systematic review of controlled trials that had evaluated EBP educational interventions was conducted using a citation analysis technique. Forward and backward citations of the index articles were tracked until March 2016. The TIDieR (template for intervention description and replication) checklist was used to assess the completeness of intervention reporting. Missing details were sought from: (i) the original publication; (ii) additional publicly available sources, and (iii) the study authors.

RESULTS

Eighty-three articles were included; 45 (54%) were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 38 (46%) were non-RCTs. The majority of trials (n = 62, 75%) involved medical professionals. None of the studies completely reported all of the main items of the educational intervention within the original publication or in additional sources. However, details became complete for 17 (20%) interventions after contact with the respective authors. The item most frequently missing was 'intervention materials', which was missing in 80 (96%) of the original publications, in additional sources for 77 (93%) interventions, and in 59 (71%) studies after contact with the authors. Authors of 69 studies were contacted; 33 provided the details requested.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting of EBP educational interventions is incomplete and remained so for the majority of studies, even after study authors had been contacted for missing information. Collaborative efforts involving authors and editors are required to improve the completeness of reporting of EBP educational interventions.