Search

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.

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.

We developed the Informed Health Choices podcast to improve people’s ability to assess claims about the effects of treatments. We evaluated the effects of the podcast in a randomised trial.ObjectivesWe conducted this process evaluation to assess the fidelity of the intervention, identify factors that affected the implementation and impact of the intervention and could affect scaling up, and identify potential adverse and beneficial effects.SettingThe study was conducted in central Uganda in rural, periurban and urban settings.ParticipantsWe collected data on parents who were in the intervention arm of the Informed Health Choices study that evaluated an intervention to improve parents’ ability to assess treatment effects.ProceduresWe conducted 84 semistructured interviews during the intervention, 19 in-depth interviews shortly after, two focus group discussions with parents, one focus group discussion with research assistants and two in-depth interviews with the principal investigators. We used framework analysis to manage qualitative data, assessed the certainty of the findings using the GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research) approach, and organised findings in a logic model.OutcomesProportion of participants listening to all episodes; factors influencing the implementation of the podcast; ways to scale up and any adverse and beneficial effects.ResultsAll participants who completed the study listened to the podcast as intended, perhaps because of the explanatory design and recruitment of parents with a positive attitude. This was also likely facilitated by the podcast being delivered by research assistants, and providing the participants with MP3 players. The podcast was reportedly clear, understandable, credible and entertaining, which motivated them to listen and eased implementation. No additional adverse effects were reported.ConclusionsParticipants experienced the podcast positively and were motivated to engage with it. These findings help to explain the short-term effectiveness of the intervention, but not the decrease in effectiveness over the following year.

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Straumann, G.S.H., Austvoll-Dahlgren, A.A., Holte, H. & Wisborg, T.W. (2018). Effect of requiring a general practitioner at scenes of serious injury: A systematic review. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 62(9), 1194-1199, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.13174. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions. Background - In Norway, each municipality is responsible for providing first line emergency healthcare, and it is mandatory to have a primary care physician/general practitioner on call continuously. This mandate ensures that a physician can assist patients and ambulance personnel at the site of severe injuries or illnesses. The compulsory presence of the general practitioner at the scene could affect different parts of patient treatment, and it might save resources by obviating resources from secondary healthcare, like pre‐hospital anaesthesiologists and other specialized resources. This systematic review aimed to examine how survival, time spent at the scene, the choice of transport destination, assessment of urgency, the number of admissions, and the number of cancellations of specialized pre‐hospital resources were affected by the presence of a general practitioner at the scene of a suspected severe injury. Methods - We searched for published and planned systematic reviews and primary studies in the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, OpenGrey, GreyLit and trial registries. The search was completed in December 2017. Two individuals independently screened the references and assessed the eligibility of all potentially relevant studies. Results - The search for systematic reviews and primary studies identified 5981 articles. However, no studies met the pre‐defined inclusion criteria. Conclusion - No studies met our inclusion criteria; consequently, it remains uncertain how the presence of a general practitioner at the injury scene might affect the selected outcomes.

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.

Background Shared decision‐making is a central element of evidence‐based practice (EBP). Training in EBP has traditionally focused on providers, but there is an increasing interest in developing such educational resources for patients. The aim of this study is to explore the views of patient representatives attending a workshop in EBP. Methods We conducted three focus groups with participants attending EBP workshops in 2013, 2014, and 2015. We used the framework method for content analysis. We reviewed the transcribed interviews independently and assigned initial codes and final categories to the transcriptions. We created an analytical framework and a flow diagram to visualize the category hierarchy and the relationship between categories. Results We identified two main themes; “How to facilitate training in evidence‐based practice for patients,” and “Outputs of training in evidence based practice for patients.” Training in EBP for patient representatives “should reflect the principles EBP,” and include interaction with both health professionals and other representatives. The educational needs of representatives are much the same as those of health professionals, and the training should therefore be “on a par with professionals.” The relevance of such training may depend on the representatives’ mandate, and costs might be an important barrier. Important outputs of such training include “becoming a knowledge manager,” “enabling participation and informed decisions” and “re‐defining the patient representatives' role.” Conclusions The findings of this study suggest that training in EBP is attractive to patient representatives with outputs perceived important. Organizers should consider the principles of EBP when planning such training.

Imagine you are a primary care doctor. A patient comes into your office with acute, atypical chest pain. Immediately you consider the patient’s sex and age, and you begin to think about what questions to ask and what diagnoses and diagnostic tests to consider. You will also need to think about what treatments to consider and how to communicate with the patient and potentially with the patient’s family and other healthcare providers. Some of what you do will be done reflexively, with little explicit thought, but caring for most patients also requires you to think critically about what you are going to do. Critical thinking, the ability to think clearly and rationally about what to do or what to believe, is essential for the practice of medicine. Few doctors are likely to argue with this. Yet, until recently, the UK regulator the General Medical Council and similar bodies in North America did not mention “critical thinking” anywhere in their standards for licensing and accreditation,1 and critical thinking is not explicitly taught or assessed in most education programmes for health professionals. Moreover, although more than 2800 articles indexed by PubMed have “critical thinking” in the title or abstract, most are about nursing. We argue that it is important for clinicians and patients to learn to think critically and that the teaching and learning of these skills should be considered explicitly. Given the shared interest in critical thinking with broader education, we also highlight why healthcare and education professionals and researchers need to work together to enable people to think critically about the health choices they make throughout life.

Background: As part of the Informed Health Choices project, we developed a podcast called The Health Choices Programme to help improve the ability of people to assess claims about the benefits and harms of treatments. We aimed to evaluate the effects of the podcast on the ability of parents of primary school children in Uganda to assess claims about the effects of treatments. Methods: We did this randomised controlled trial in central Uganda. We recruited parents of children aged 10–12 years who were in their fifth year of school at 35 schools that were participating in a linked trial of the Informed Health Choices primary school resources. The parents were randomly allocated (1:1), via a web-based random number generator with block sizes of four and six, to listen to either the Informed Health Choices podcast (intervention group) or typical public service announcements about health issues (control group). Randomisation was stratified by parents' highest level of formal education attained (primary school, secondary school, or tertiary education) and the allocation of their children's school in the trial of the primary school resources (intervention vs control). The primary outcome, measured after listening to the entire podcast, was the mean score and the proportion of parents with passing scores on a test with two multiple choice questions for each of nine key concepts essential to assessing claims about treatments (18 questions in total). We did intention-to-treat analyses. This trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry, number PACTR201606001676150. Findings: We recruited parents between July 21, 2016, and Oct 7, 2016. We randomly assigned 675 parents to the podcast group (n=334) or the public service announcement group (n=341); 561 (83%) participants completed follow-up. The mean score for parents in the podcast group was 67·8% (SD 19·6) compared with 52·4% (17·6) in the control group (adjusted mean difference 15·5%, 95% CI 12·5–18·6; p

Background The ability to appraise claims about the benefits and harms of treatments is crucial for informed health care decision-making. This research aims to enable children in East African primary schools (the clusters) to acquire and retain skills that can help them make informed health care choices by improving their ability to obtain, process and understand health information. The trial will evaluate (at the individual participant level) whether specially designed learning resources can teach children some of the key concepts relevant to appraising claims about the benefits and harms of health care interventions (treatments). Methods This is a two-arm, cluster-randomised trial with stratified random allocation. We will recruit 120 primary schools (the clusters) between April and May 2016 in the central region of Uganda. We will stratify participating schools by geographical setting (rural, semi-urban, or urban) and ownership (public or private). The Informed Healthcare Choices (IHC) primary school resources consist of a textbook and a teachers’ guide. Each of the students in the intervention arm will receive a textbook and attend nine lessons delivered by their teachers during a school term, with each lesson lasting 80 min. The lessons cover 12 key concepts that are relevant to assessing claims about treatments and making informed health care choices. The second arm will carry on with the current primary school curriculum. We have designed the Claim Evaluation Tools to measure people’s ability to apply key concepts related to assessing claims about the effects of treatments and making informed health care choices. The Claim Evaluation Tools use multiple choice questions addressing each of the 12 concepts covered by the IHC school resources. Using the Claim Evaluation Tools we will measure two primary outcomes: (1) the proportion of children who ‘pass’, based on an absolute standard and (2) their average scores. Discussion As far as we are aware this is the first randomised trial to assess whether key concepts needed to judge claims about the effects of treatment can be taught to primary school children. Whatever the results, they will be relevant to learning how to promote critical thinking about treatment claims. Trial status: the recruitment of study participants was ongoing at the time of manuscript submission. Trial registration Pan African Clinical Trial Registry, trial identifier: PACTR201606001679337. Registered on 13 June 2016. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1958-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background\ud People are frequently confronted with untrustworthy claims about the effects of treatments. Uncritical acceptance of these claims can lead to poor, and sometimes dangerous, treatment decisions, and wasted time and money. Resources to help people learn to think critically about treatment claims are scarce, and they are widely scattered. Furthermore, very few learning-resources have been assessed to see if they improve knowledge and behavior.\ud \ud Objectives\ud Our objectives were to develop the Critical thinking and Appraisal Resource Library (CARL). This library was to be in the form of a database containing learning resources for those who are responsible for encouraging critical thinking about treatment claims, and was to be made available online. We wished to include resources for groups we identified as ‘intermediaries’ of knowledge, i.e. teachers of schoolchildren, undergraduates and graduates, for example those teaching evidence-based medicine, or those communicating treatment claims to the public. In selecting resources, we wished to draw particular attention to those resources that had been formally evaluated, for example, by the creators of the resource or independent research groups.\ud \ud Methods\ud CARL was populated with learning-resources identified from a variety of sources—two previously developed but unmaintained inventories; systematic reviews of learning-interventions; online and database searches; and recommendations by members of the project group and its advisors. The learning-resources in CARL were organised by ‘Key Concepts’ needed to judge the trustworthiness of treatment claims, and were made available online by the James Lind Initiative in Testing Treatments interactive (TTi) English (www.testingtreatments.org/category/learning-resources).TTi English also incorporated the database of Key Concepts and the Claim Evaluation Tools developed through the Informed Healthcare Choices (IHC) project (informedhealthchoices.org).\ud \ud Results\ud We have created a database of resources called CARL, which currently contains over 500 open-access learning-resources in a variety of formats: text, audio, video, webpages, cartoons, and lesson materials. These are aimed primarily at ‘Intermediaries’, that is, ‘teachers’, ‘communicators’, ‘advisors’, ‘researchers’, as well as for independent ‘learners’. The resources included in CARL are currently accessible at www.testingtreatments.org/category/learning-resources\ud \ud Conclusions\ud We hope that ready access to CARL will help to promote the critical thinking about treatment claims, needed to help improve healthcare choices.

Background Claims made about the effects of treatments are very common in the media and in the population more generally. The ability of individuals to understand and assess such claims can affect their decisions and health outcomes. Many people in both low- and high-income countries have inadequate aptitude to assess information about the effects of treatments. As part of the Informed Healthcare Choices project, we have prepared a series of podcast episodes to help improve people’s ability to assess claims made about treatment effects. We will evaluate the effect of the Informed Healthcare Choices podcast on people’s ability to assess claims made about the benefits and harms of treatments. Our study population will be parents of primary school children in schools with limited educational and financial resources in Uganda. Methods This will be a two-arm, parallel-group, individual-randomised trial. We will randomly allocate consenting participants who meet the inclusion criteria for the trial to either listen to nine episodes of the Informed Healthcare Choices podcast (intervention) or to listen to nine typical public service announcements about health issues (control). Each podcast includes a story about a treatment claim, a message about one key concept that we believe is important for people to be able to understand to assess treatment claims, an explanation of how that concept applies to the claim, and a second example illustrating the concept. We designed the Claim Evaluation Tools to measure people’s ability to apply key concepts related to assessing claims made about the effects of treatments and making informed health care choices. The Claim Evaluation Tools that we will use include multiple-choice questions addressing each of the nine concepts covered by the podcast. Using the Claim Evaluation Tools, we will measure two primary outcomes: (1) the proportion that ‘pass’, based on an absolute standard and (2) the average score. Discussion As far as we are aware this is the first randomised trial to assess the use of mass media to promote understanding of the key concepts needed to judge claims made about the effects of treatments. Trial registration Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, PACTR201606001676150. Registered on 12 June 2016. http://www.pactr.org/ATMWeb/appmanager/atm/atmregistry?dar=true&tNo=PACTR201606001676150. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1745-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BACKGROUND: The proportion of total healthcare expenditures spent on drugs has continued to grow in countries of all income categories. Policy‐makers are under pressure to control pharmaceutical expenditures without adversely affecting quality of care. Financial incentives seeking to influence prescribers' behaviour include budgetary arrangements at primary care and hospital settings (pharmaceutical budget caps or targets), financial rewards for target behaviours or outcomes (pay for performance interventions) and reduced benefit margin for prescribers based on medicine sales and prescriptions (pharmaceutical reimbursement rate reduction policies). This is the first update of the original version of this review. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of pharmaceutical policies using financial incentives to influence prescribers' practices on drug use, healthcare utilisation, health outcomes and costs (expenditures). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (searched 29/01/2015); MEDLINE, Ovid SP (searched 29/01/2015); EMBASE, Ovid SP (searched 29/01/2015); International Network for Rational Use of Drugs (INRUD) Bibliography (searched 29/01/2015); National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database (searched 29/01/2015); EconLit ‐ ProQuest (searched 02/02/2015); and Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index, Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Knowledge (citation search for included studies searched 10/02/2015). We screened the reference lists of relevant reports and contacted study authors and organisations to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included policies that intend to affect prescribing by means of financial incentives for prescribers. Included in this category are pharmaceutical budget caps or targets, pay for performance and drug reimbursement rate reductions and other financial policies, if they were specifically targeted at prescribing or drug utilisation. Policies in this review were defined as laws, rules, regulations and financial and administrative orders made or implemented by payers such as national or local governments, non‐government organisations, private or social insurers and insurance‐like organisations. One of the following outcomes had to be reported: drug use, healthcare utilisation, health outcomes or costs. The study had to be a randomised or non‐randomised trial, an interrupted time series (ITS) analysis, a repeated measures study or a controlled before‐after (CBA) study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed eligibility for inclusion of studies and risks of bias using Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) criteria and extracted data from the included studies. For CBA studies, we reported relative effects (e.g. adjusted relative change). The review team re‐analysed all ITS results. When possible, the review team also re‐analysed CBA data as ITS data. MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen evaluations (six new studies) of pharmaceutical policies from six high‐income countries met our inclusion criteria. Fourteen studies evaluated pharmaceutical budget policies in the UK (nine studies), two in Germany and Ireland and one each in Sweden and Taiwan. Three studies assessed pay for performance policies in the UK (two) and the Netherlands (one). One study from Taiwan assessed a reimbursement rate reduction policy. ITS analyses had some limitations. All CBA studies had serious limitations. No study from low‐income or middle‐income countries met the inclusion criteria. Pharmaceutical budgets may lead to a modest reduction in drug use (median relative change ‐2.8%; low‐certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects of the policy on drug costs or healthcare utilisation, as the certainty of such evidence has been assessed as very low. Effects of this policy on health outcomes were not reported. Effects of pay for performance policies on drug use and health outcomes are uncertain, as the certainty of such evidence has been assessed as very low. Effects of this policy on drug costs and healthcare utilisation have not been measured. Effects of the reimbursement rate reduction policy on drug use and drug costs are uncertain, as the certainty of such evidence has been assessed as very low. No included study assessed the effects of this policy on healthcare utilisation or health outcomes. Administration costs of the policies were not reported in any of the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although financial incentives are considered an important element in strategies to change prescribing patterns, limited evidence of their effects can be found. Effects of policies, including pay for performance policies, in improving quality of care and health outcomes remain uncertain. Because pharmaceutical policies have uncertain effects, and because they might cause harm as well as benefit, proper evaluation of these policies is needed. Future studies should consider the impact of these policies on health outcomes, drug use and overall healthcare expenditures, as well as on drug expenditures.

BACKGROUND: This trial was conducted as part of a project that aims to enhance public understanding and use of research in decisions about healthcare by enabling viewers to participate in research and to follow the process, through television reports and on the web. Valerian is an herbal over-the-counter drug that is widely used for insomnia. Systematic reviews have found inconsistent and inconclusive results about its effects. METHODS: Participants were recruited through a weekly nationally televised health program in Norway. Enrolment and data collection were over the Internet. 405 participants who were 18 to 75 years old and had insomnia completed a two week diary-keeping run-in period without treatment and were randomised and mailed valerian or placebo tablets for two weeks. All participants and investigators were blind to treatment until after the analysis was completed. FINDINGS: For the primary outcome of a minimally important improvement in self-reported sleep quality (> or = 0.5 units on a 7 point scale), the difference between the valerian group (29%) and the placebo group (21%) was not statistically significant (difference 7.5%; 95% CI-0.9 to 15.9; p = 0.08). On the global self-assessment question at the end of the treatment period 5.5% (95% CI 0.2 to 10.8) more participants in the valerian group perceived their sleep as better or much better (p = 0.04). There were similar trends favouring the valerian group for night awakenings (difference = 6.0%, 95% CI-0.5 to 12.5) and sleep duration (difference = 7.5%, 95% CI-1.0 to 16.1). There were no serious adverse events and no important or statistically significant differences in minor adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Based on this and previous studies, valerian appears to be safe, but with modest beneficial effects at most on insomnia compared to placebo. The combined use of television and the Internet in randomised trials offers opportunities to answer questions about the effects of health care interventions and to improve public understanding and use of randomised trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN72748991.