Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29716639›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2018

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

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

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Informed decisions about public health and social measures.Health research policy and systems · 2025
    Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Leila CusackCentre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice (CREBP), Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, 14 University Drive, Robina, QLD, 4229, Australia. leila.cusack@student.bond.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-0178-6426
Chris B Del MarCentre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice (CREBP), Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, 14 University Drive, Robina, QLD, 4229, Australia.
Iain ChalmersJames Lind Initiative, Oxford, UK.
Elizabeth GibsonCentre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice (CREBP), Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, 14 University Drive, Robina, QLD, 4229, Australia.
Tammy C HoffmannCentre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice (CREBP), Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, 14 University Drive, Robina, QLD, 4229, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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

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

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

conclusionsEducational interventions to improve people's understanding of key concepts for evaluating health intervention claims can improve people's knowledge and skills, at least in the short term. Effects on confidence, attitude and behaviour are uncertain. Many of the studies were at moderate or greater risk of bias. Improvements in study quality, consistency of outcome measures and measures of longer-term effects are needed to improve confidence in estimates of the effects of educational interventions to improve people's understanding of key concepts for evaluating health intervention claims. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016033103.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth EducationHealth LiteracyHumansQuality ImprovementConsumerCritical appraisalCritical health literacyCritical thinkingEducationHealth informationHealth literacy

Identifiers

PMID29716639
PMCPMC5930693

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.