SynthesisPloS one2016
Effects of School-Based Educational Interventions for Enhancing Adolescents Abilities in Critical Appraisal of Health Claims: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Interventions to Enhance COVID-19 Pandemic Health Literacy in Health Professionals: Systematic Review.JMIR medical education · 2026Pooled it
- Do studies of interventions to improve laypeople's critical thinking about health choices assess potential harms? A systematic review.BMJ open · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Improving the adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures in the community: Evidence brief for policy.Frontiers in public health · 2022Pooled it
- Educational interventions to improve people's understanding of key concepts in assessing the effects of health interventions: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Trial
- Trial
- Teaching Australian high school students to think critically about health claims: a cluster randomized trial.Health education research · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Effectiveness of a school-based health literacy intervention in improving adolescent health literacy and the intention to take health-promoting actions.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Cross-cultural adaptation of the eHealth Literacy Scale for Brazilian adolescents.Brazilian oral research · 2024Article
- Strategies for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and the population: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Standardised data on initiatives-STARDIT: Beta version.Research involvement and engagement · 2022Article
- Learning to think critically about health using digital technology in Ugandan lower secondary schools: A contextual analysis.PloS one · 2022Article
- Intersection of the Web-Based Vaping Narrative With COVID-19: Topic Modeling Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- 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.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2020Article
- The Norwegian public's ability to assess treatment claims: results of a cross-sectional study of critical health literacy.F1000Research · 2020Article
- Article
- The James Lind Initiative: books, websites and databases to promote critical thinking about treatment claims, 2003 to 2018.Research involvement and engagement · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveAdolescents are frequent media users who access health claims from various sources. The plethora of conflicting, pseudo-scientific, and often misleading health claims in popular media makes critical appraisal of health claims an essential ability. Schools play an important role in educating youth to critically appraise health claims. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects of school-based educational interventions for enhancing adolescents' abilities in critically appraising health claims.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, Cinahl, Teachers Reference Centre, LISTA, ERIC, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, The Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and sources of grey literature. Studies that evaluated school-based educational interventions to improve adolescents' critical appraisal ability for health claims through advancing the students' knowledge about science were included. Eligible study designs were randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, and interrupted time series. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in included studies. Due to heterogeneity in interventions and inadequate reporting of results, we performed a descriptive synthesis of studies. We used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) to assess the certainty of the evidence.
resultsEight studies were included: two compared different teaching modalities, while the others compared educational interventions to instruction as usual. Studies mostly reported positive short-term effects on critical appraisal-related knowledge and skills in favour of the educational interventions. However, the certainty of the evidence for all comparisons and outcomes was very low.
conclusionEducational interventions in schools may have beneficial short-term effects on knowledge and skills relevant to the critical appraisal of health claims. The small number of studies, their heterogeneity, and the predominantly high risk of bias inhibit any firm conclusions about their effects. None of the studies evaluated any long-term effects of interventions. Future intervention studies should adhere to high methodological standards, target a wider variety of school-based settings, and include a process evaluation. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO no. CRD42015017936.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.