Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26915734›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2016

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

Leila Cusack, Chris B Del Mar, Iain Chalmers, Tammy C Hoffmann

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
25.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 190 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A qualitative study exploring high school students' understanding of, and attitudes towards, health information and claims.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017
    Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Leila CusackFaculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice (CREBP), Bond University, Robina, QLD, 4229, Australia. leila.cusack@student.bond.edu.au.
Chris B Del MarFaculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice (CREBP), Bond University, Robina, QLD, 4229, Australia. cdelmar@bond.edu.au.
Iain ChalmersJames Lind Initiative, Oxford, UK. ichalmers@jameslindlibrary.org.
Tammy C HoffmannFaculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice (CREBP), Bond University, Robina, QLD, 4229, Australia. thoffmann@bond.edu.au.
Bond University · AUJames Lind Institute · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth information has become readily accessible through mass media, and people are playing a more active and autonomous role in their health. Much of the health information that was previously only available to health professionals is now directly accessible to the public. Consequently, people often navigate vast amounts of health information on their own, typically with little knowledge about how to evaluate it or the need to do so. Health information remains essentially unregulated, and widespread problems and concerns with the quality of health information have been noted. In addition to the variable quality of health information, inconsistent and/or inappropriate use of related terminology (e.g. 'evidence-based' and 'clinically proven') can be confusing to the public, who are ill-prepared to critically examine claims. The general public are not trained in the fundamentals of health research and do not typically possess the knowledge and skills to evaluate the accuracy and completeness of information about health interventions. Without this, the public are vulnerable to acting on inaccurate or incomplete health information and making ill-informed health decisions. With this review, we intend to identify and assess educational interventions which have been designed to improve people's ability to understand key concepts relevant to evaluating claims about the effects of health interventions. METHODS/

designThis systematic review of the literature will use a search strategy that has been developed in conjunction with a Health Sciences Librarian who has expertise in systematic review searching to identify relevant studies. Databases to be searched include the following: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ERIC. Attempts to identify unpublished studies and ongoing trials will also be made. Two review authors will independently screen search results and assess studies for eligibility. Studies which aim to improve participants' understanding of the key concepts relevant to evaluating the effects (or the interpretation of results) of health interventions will be included. Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before and after studies, controlled studies with only post-test measures, and interrupted time series studies will be eligible for inclusion. We will contact study authors to clarify any missing details/data. Due to the nature of the systematic review question and the expectation of heterogeneity in study design, interventions, and outcomes, we intend to take a narrative approach to data synthesis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016033103.

Indexed as

Consumer Health InformationHealth LiteracyHealth EducationHumansSystematic Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID26915734
PMCPMC4766603
OpenAlexW2282574978

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.