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.

OBJECTIVE To describe the psychometric testing using Rasch analysis of a test in Mandarin developed from the Claim Evaluation Tools database. METHODS We translated selected MCQs from the IHC Claim Evaluation Tools database to Mandarin and created a test including 24 MCQs covering 11 key concepts. We used purposeful sampling and surveyed children and adults in the Lanzhou area. In total 389 responses were entered into the analysis. We evaluated the psychometric properties of the test using Rasch analysis and the RUMM2030 software, testing for internal construct validity (multidimensionality), invariance of the items (item-person interaction), and item bias (differential item functioning). RESULTS Overall, the psychometric properties of the test were found to be satisfactory. Based on findings from the Rasch analysis, we deleted three MCQs with suboptimal fit. CONCLUSIONS The resulting test includes 21 MCQs and can be used in school and other teaching settings, in randomized trials evaluating outcomes of educational interventions, or in cross-sectional studies in Mandarin-speaking populations in China.

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.

espanolIntroduccion: Todos los dias, las personas se enfrentan a afirmaciones acerca de tratamientos en medios de comunicacion, redes sociales o por viva voz. Objetivo: Validar un cuestionario en espanol para medir las habilidades de un individuo para evaluar afirmaciones acerca de tratamientos. Metodo: Veintidos preguntas de opcion multiple de la base de datos Claim Evaluation Tools fueron traducidas y aplicadas a 172 ninos y 268 adultos. Mediante un modelo Rasch se exploro el ajuste promedio e individual por reactivo, el potencial comportamiento diferencial del reactivo (basado en el genero, edad y modo de aplicacion), la multidimensionalidad y la independencia local. Resultados: El ajuste promedio por reactivo fue apropiado. Cuatro preguntas de opcion multiple mostraron pobre ajuste. La fiabilidad del cuestionario fue satisfactoria, con un indice de separacion de 0.7. Las preguntas de opcion multiple fueron unidimensionales, y no hubo dependencia especifica. Conclusion: Se obtuvo un conjunto de 18 preguntas de opcion multiple con ajuste satisfactorio. El cuestionario es el primero disponible y validado en espanol para medir las habilidades de los individuos para evaluar afirmaciones acerca de tratamientos. EnglishIntroduction: Every day, people are faced with claims about treatment effects through mass media, social media, or by word of mouth. Objective: To validate a Spanish-language questionnaire to measure the ability of an individual to assess claims about treatments effects. Method: A set of 22 multiple choice questions taken from the claim evaluation tools database were translated and applied to 172 children and 268 adults. Using a Rasch model, overall and individual item-person fit was explored, as well as the potential item differential functioning (based on gender, age and mode of administration), multidimensionality and local independence. Results: Overall item-person fit was appropriate. Four multiple-choice questions showed a poor fit. Reliability of the questionnaire was satisfactory with a person separation index of 0.7. Multiple-choice questions were unidimensional, and there was no specific dependency. Conclusion: A set of 18 multiple-choice questions with satisfactory fit was obtained. This is the first available questionnaire validated in Spanish to measure individuals’ ability to assess claims about treatment effects

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.

Objectives Claims about interventions are ubiquitous. The ability to assess these claims and make informed choices depends on understanding and applying key concepts that are essential for making judgements about whether a claim is justified, whether comparisons are fair and reliable, and what action to take. The Informed Health Choices (IHC) project has developed educational resources for schoolchildren and their parents to help improve their ability to assess claims about treatment effects. As our starting point, we developed a list of Key Concepts that people need to understand to assess these claims. The list currently includes 36 concepts and serves as a syllabus or curriculum. The objectives of this workshop are to discuss the Key Concepts, their potential uses, whether they are sensible, and their further development. We will also discuss applicability of the concepts to claims and decisions about tests; and to other areas, such as education and environmental management. Method We generated an initial list of concepts by identifying key concepts in literature and tools written for the general public, journalists, and health professionals, and by considering concepts related to assessing the certainty of evidence for treatment effects. We established a project advisory group composed of key researchers, journalists, teachers, and others with expertise in health literacy and teaching or communicating evidence-based healthcare to patients. Based on feedback collected online and at a workshop we have updated the list of IHC Key Concepts yearly (in 2016 and 2017). Results The IHC Key Concepts provide a basis for developing learning resources to help people understand and apply the concepts when claims are made about the effects of treatments (and other interventions), and when health choices are made. The list of concepts also forms the basis for a database of multiple-choice questions which can be used to assess people’s ability to apply the IHC Key Concepts. The IHC Key Concepts serve as standards for judgment, or principles for evaluating the trustworthiness of treatment claims, comparisons, and choices. The list is intended to be universally relevant. The concepts can help people to: Recognise claims about the effects of treatments which have an unreliable basis. Understand whether comparisons of treatments are fair and reliable. Make informed choices about treatments. Conclusions This workshop will be a structured discussion of the potential uses of the IHC Key Concepts, the extent to which they are sensible and useful, and ways in which they might be improved. The Key Concepts are reviewed annually to allow for revisions of existing concepts and identification and inclusion of additional concepts. This discussion will feed into this process.

Aim In Norway, each municipality is responsible for first line emergency healthcare, and has to have a general practitioner (GP) on call continuously. GPs are expected to assist patients and ambulance personnel at the site of severe injuries or illnesses. The Norwegian society invests substantial resources into emergency care, and it is desirable to find evidence to inform this practice. 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 specialised prehospital resources were affected by the presence of a GP at the scene of a suspected severe injury. Method This systematic review utilised systematic, transparent methods.1 We searched published and planned systematic reviews and primary studies in Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, OpenGrey, GreyLit and trial registries in June 2016. Two authors independently screened the references and assessed the eligibility of all potentially relevant studies. The inclusion criteria for study design was based on the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC).2 Results The search for systematic reviews and primary studies identified 5415 articles. However, no studies met the predefined inclusion criteria. Most studies were excluded because they did not investigate either the target population (severely injured) or the intervention in question (presence of a general practitioner). Conclusion It remains uncertain how the presence of a general practitioner at the injury scene might affect the selected outcomes. References . Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services. This is how we summarise research (Slik oppsummerer vi forskning). Handbook for Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services 4th ed. 2015, Oslo. . What study designs should be included in an EPOC review and what should they be called? EPOC Resources for review authors. Oslo: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, 2017. (Accessed 15. February 2017, at http://epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-specific-resources-review-authors.) Conflict of interest None Funding None

Objective People are confronted with claims about the effects of treatments and health policies daily. Our objective was to develop a list of concepts that may be important for people to understand when assessing claims about treatment effects. Methods An initial list of concepts was generated by the project team by identifying key concepts in literature and tools written for the general public, journalists, and health professionals, and consideration of concepts related to assessing the certainty of evidence for treatment effects. We invited key researchers, journalists, teachers and others with expertise in health literacy and teaching or communicating evidence-based health care to patients to act as the project's advisory group. Results Twenty-nine members of the advisory group provided feedback on the list of concepts and judged the list to be sufficiently complete and organised appropriately. The list includes 32 concepts divided into six groups: (i) Recognising the need for systematic reviews of fair tests, (ii) Judging whether a comparison of treatments is fair comparison, (iii) Understanding the role of chance, (iv) Considering all the relevant fair comparisons, (v) Understanding the results of fair comparisons of treatments, (vi) Judging whether fair comparisons of treatments are relevant. Conclusion The concept list provides a starting point for developing and evaluating resources to improve people's ability to assess treatment effects. The concepts are considered to be universally relevant, and include considerations that can help people assess claims about the effects of treatments, including claims that are found in mass media reports, in advertisements and in personal communication.

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.

Well-informed choices about how to improve health outcomes depend on access to reliable information, including research evidence. Many people (the public, health professionals and policymakers) have problems understanding some of the terminology used in describing evaluations of treatments. In this article, we describe the development of a glossary to provide plain language explanations of commonly used terms. We identified terms for inclusion in the glossary by screening multiple sources, including 14 other glossaries. Using an iterative process that included feedback and user testing, we designed an online glossary that is freely available at http://getitglossary.org. The glossary includes 242 commonly used terms. For each entry there is a suggested preferred term (plain language term), a short definition that can be accessed as a 'pop-up' within text, synonyms, a longer explanation and links to related terms. We also flag 11 terms that we advise against using because they are ambiguous or misinterpreted, with explanations of why we advise against using them. The glossary can be incorporated into documents, providing support for evidence-informed health-care decisions, and embedded in other websites serving a wide variety of functions.

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 Patient volume is assumed to affect quality, whereby complex procedures are best performed by those who perform them frequently. We have conducted a systematic review of the research on the association between patient volume and quality of vascular surgery. In this article we describe the outcomes for abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery.MATERIAL AND METHOD We undertook systematic searches in relevant databases. We searched for systematic reviews, and randomised and observational studies. The search was concluded in December 2015. We have summarised the results descriptively and assessed the overall quality of the evidence.RESULTS Forty-six observational studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. We found a possible association for both hospital and surgeon volume. Higher patient volume may possibly be associated with lower 30-day mortality and lower hospital mortality for both open and endovascular surgery. Although the association appears to apply to both elective and acute hospitalisations, there is greater uncertainty with regard to the most ill patients. For hospital volume there may also be fewer complications for open and endovascular surgery, as well as for all surgery assessed as a whole. We considered the evidence base to be medium to very low quality.INTERPRETATION We found a possible correlation between patient volume and quality indicators such as mortality and complications. It may be advantageous to allocate planned procedures to institutions and surgeons with high volume, while this is less certain with regard to acute hospitalisations.

Background: Claims about what improves or harms our health are ubiquitous. People need to be able to assess the reliability of these claims. We aimed to evaluate an intervention designed to teach primary school children to assess claims about the effects of treatments (ie, any action intended to maintain or improve health). Methods: In this cluster-randomised controlled trial, we included primary schools in the central region of Uganda that taught year-5 children (aged 10–12 years). We excluded international schools, special needs schools for children with auditory and visual impairments, schools that had participated in user-testing and piloting of the resources, infant and nursery schools, adult education schools, and schools that were difficult for us to access in terms of travel time. 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). Teachers attended a 2 day introductory workshop and gave nine 80 min lessons during one school term. The lessons addressed 12 concepts essential to assessing claims about treatment effects and making informed health choices. We did not intervene in the control schools. The primary outcome, measured at the end of the school term, was 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 on the same test. This trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry, number PACTR201606001679337. Findings: Between April 11, 2016, and June 8, 2016, 2960 schools were assessed 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, 76 teachers and 6383 children) or control group (n=60, 67 teachers and 4430 children). The mean score in the multiple-choice test for the intervention schools was 62·4% (SD 18·8) compared with 43·1% (15·2) for the control schools (adjusted mean difference 20·0%, 95% CI 17·3–22·7; p

BACKGROUND Patient volume is assumed to affect quality, whereby complex procedures are best performed by those who perform them frequently. We have conducted a systematic review of the research on the association between patient volume and quality of vascular surgery. In this article we describe the outcomes for abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery.MATERIAL AND METHOD We undertook systematic searches in relevant databases. We searched for systematic reviews, and randomised and observational studies. The search was concluded in December 2015. We have summarised the results descriptively and assessed the overall quality of the evidence.RESULTS Forty-six observational studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. We found a possible association for both hospital and surgeon volume. Higher patient volume may possibly be associated with lower 30-day mortality and lower hospital mortality for both open and endovascular surgery. Although the association appears to apply to both elective and acute hospitalisations, there is greater uncertainty with regard to the most ill patients. For hospital volume there may also be fewer complications for open and endovascular surgery, as well as for all surgery assessed as a whole. We considered the evidence base to be medium to very low quality.INTERPRETATION We found a possible correlation between patient volume and quality indicators such as mortality and complications. It may be advantageous to allocate planned procedures to institutions and surgeons with high volume, while this is less certain with regard to acute hospitalisations.

Background The Claim Evaluation Tools database contains multiple-choice items for measuring people’s ability to apply the key concepts they need to know to be able to assess treatment claims. We assessed items from the database using Rasch analysis to develop an outcome measure to be used in two randomised trials in Uganda. Rasch analysis is a form of psychometric testing relying on Item Response Theory. It is a dynamic way of developing outcome measures that are valid and reliable. Objectives To assess the validity, reliability and responsiveness of 88 items addressing 22 key concepts using Rasch analysis. Participants We administrated four sets of multiple-choice items in English to 1114 people in Uganda and Norway, of which 685 were children and 429 were adults (including 171 health professionals). We scored all items dichotomously. We explored summary and individual fit statistics using the RUMM2030 analysis package. We used SPSS to perform distractor analysis. Results Most items conformed well to the Rasch model, but some items needed revision. Overall, the four item sets had satisfactory reliability. We did not identify significant response dependence between any pairs of items and, overall, the magnitude of multidimensionality in the data was acceptable. The items had a high level of difficulty. Conclusion Most of the items conformed well to the Rasch model’s expectations. Following revision of some items, we concluded that most of the items were suitable for use in an outcome measure for evaluating the ability of children or adults to assess treatment claims.

ObjectivesTo describe the development of the Claim Evaluation Tools, a set of flexible items to measure people's ability to assess claims about treatment effects.SettingMethodologists and members of the community (including children) in Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya, Norway, the UK and Australia.ParticipantsIn the iterative development of the items, we used purposeful sampling of people with training in research methodology, such as teachers of evidence-based medicine, as well as patients and members of the public from low-income and high-income countries. Development consisted of 4 processes: (1) determining the scope of the Claim Evaluation Tools and development of items; (2) expert item review and feedback (n=63); (3) cognitive interviews with children and adult end-users (n=109); and (4) piloting and administrative tests (n=956).ResultsThe Claim Evaluation Tools database currently includes a battery of multiple-choice items. Each item begins with a scenario which is intended to be relevant across contexts, and which can be used for children (from age 10 and above), adult members of the public and health professionals. People with expertise in research methods judged the items to have face validity, and end-users judged them relevant and acceptable in their settings. In response to feedback from methodologists and end-users, we simplified some text, explained terms where needed, and redesigned formats and instructions.ConclusionsThe Claim Evaluation Tools database is a flexible resource from which researchers, teachers and others can design measurement instruments to meet their own requirements. These evaluation tools are being managed and made freely available for non-commercial use (on request) through Testing Treatments interactive (testingtreatments.org).Trial registration numbersPACTR201606001679337 and PACTR201606001676150; Pre-results.

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 People’s ability to appraise claims about treatment effects is crucial for informed decision-making. Our objective was to systematically map this area of research in order to (a) provide an overview of interventions targeting key concepts that people need to understand to assess treatment claims and (b) to identify assessment tools used to evaluate people’s understanding of these concepts. The findings of this review provide a starting point for decisions about which key concepts to address when developing new interventions, and which assessment tools should be considered. Methods We conducted a systematic mapping review of interventions and assessment tools addressing key concepts important for people to be able to assess treatment claims. A systematic literature search was done by a reserach librarian in relevant databases. Judgement about inclusion of studies and data collection was done by at least two researchers. We included all quantitative study designs targeting one or more of the key concepts, and targeting patients, healthy members of the public, and health professionals. The studies were divided into four categories: risk communication and decision aids, evidence-based medicine and critical appraisal, understanding of controlled trials, and science education. Findings were summarised descriptively. Results We included 415 studies, of which the interventions and assessment tools we identified included only a handful of the key concepts. The most common key concepts in interventions were “Treatments usually have beneficial and harmful effects,” “Treatment comparisons should be fair,” “Compare like with like,” and “Single studies can be misleading.” A variety of assessment tools were identified, but only four assessment tools included 10 or more key concepts. Conclusions There is great potential for developing learning and assessment tools targeting key concepts that people need to understand to assess claims about treatment effects. There is currently no instrument covering assessment of all these key concepts. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0389-z) 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.