SynthesisSystematic reviews2018
Educational interventions to improve people's understanding of key concepts in assessing the effects of health interventions: a systematic review.
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.
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
44 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled 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
- A Comparison of Dietary Patterns and Factors Influencing Food Choice among Ethnic Groups Living in One Locality: A Systematic Review.Nutrients · 2022Pooled it
- Improving the adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures in the community: Evidence brief for policy.Frontiers in public health · 2022Pooled it
- Effectiveness of therapeutic patient education interventions for chronic diseases: A systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Improving Critical Appraisal of Cancer-Related Health Information: A Pilot Randomised Trial of the Informed Health Choices-Cancer Programme.Psycho-oncology · 2026Trial
- A Critical Health Literacy Podcast to Counter Health Misinformation at Scale: Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Process Evaluation of Teaching Critical Thinking About Health Using the Informed Health Choices Intervention in Kenya: A Mixed Methods Study.Global health, science and practice · 2024Trial
- Teaching Australian high school students to think critically about health claims: a cluster randomized trial.Health education research · 2023Trial
- A Culturally Sensitive and Theory-Based Intervention on Prevention and Management of Diabetes: A Cluster Randomized Control Trial.Nutrients · 2022Trial
- Effects of Internet-Based Nutrition and Exercise Interventions on the Prevention and Treatment of Sarcopenia in the Elderly.Nutrients · 2022Trial
- Communicating Uncertainty in Written Consumer Health Information to the Public: Parallel-Group, Web-Based Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Informed decisions about public health and social measures.Health research policy and systems · 2025Review
- Article
- A Cross-Sectional Study Assessing Antibiotic Resistance Awareness Among University Students in Samborondón, Greater Guayaquil, Ecuador.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
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
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.