Trial reportBMJ open2019
Informed health choices intervention to teach primary school children in low-income countries to assess claims about treatment effects: process evaluation.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.
- Do studies of interventions to improve laypeople's critical thinking about health choices assess potential harms? A systematic review.BMJ open · 2026Pooled it
- Quality of information in news media reports about the effects of health interventions: Systematic review and meta-analyses.F1000Research · 2021Pooled it
- Trial
- Process Evaluation of Teaching Critical Thinking About Health Using the Informed Health Choices Intervention in Uganda: A Mixed Methods Study.Global health, science and practice · 2024Trial
- 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
- Process Evaluation of Teaching Critical Thinking About Health Using the Informed Health Choices Intervention in Rwanda: A Mixed Methods Study.Global health, science and practice · 2024Trial
- Feasibility of contextualizing the Informed Health Choices learning resources in Italy: A pilot study in a primary school in Florence.F1000Research · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Interventions to promote critical health literacy: a scoping review.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Exploring school nurses' potential to strengthen young people's resilience to misinformation by promoting critical health literacy in Norway.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Article
- Teaching methods for critical thinking in health education of children up to high school: A scoping review.PloS one · 2024Article
- Prioritisation of Informed Health Choices (IHC) key concepts to be included in lower secondary school resources: A consensus study.PloS one · 2023Article
- Piloting the informed health choices resources in Barcelona primary schools: A mixed methods study.PloS one · 2023Article
- Teaching critical thinking about health information and choices in secondary schools: human-centred design of digital resources.F1000Research · 2023Article
- Contextualizing critical thinking about health using digital technology in secondary schools in Kenya: a qualitative analysis.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2022Article
- Learning to think critically about health using digital technology in Ugandan lower secondary schools: A contextual analysis.PloS one · 2022Article
- App-Based Salt Reduction Intervention in School Children and Their Families (AppSalt) in China: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Process Evaluation.JMIR research protocols · 2021Article
- Teaching critical thinking about health using digital technology in lower secondary schools in Rwanda: A qualitative context analysis.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe developed the informed health choices (IHC) primary school resources to teach children how to assess the trustworthiness of claims about the effects of treatments. We evaluated these resources in a randomised trial in Uganda. This paper describes the process evaluation that we conducted alongside this trial.
objectivesTo identify factors affecting the implementation, impact and scaling up of the intervention; and potential adverse and beneficial effects of the intervention.
methodsAll 85 teachers in the 60 schools in the intervention arm of the trial completed a questionnaire after each lesson and at the end of the term. We conducted structured classroom observations at all 60 schools. For interviews and focus groups, we purposively selected six schools. We interviewed district education officers, teachers, head teachers, children and their parents. We used a framework analysis approach to analyse the data.
resultsMost of the participants liked the IHC resources and felt that the content was important. This motivated the teachers and contributed to positive attitudes. Although some teachers started out lacking confidence, many found that the children's enthusiasm for the lessons made them more confident. Nearly everyone interviewed thought that the children learnt something important and many thought that it improved their decision-making. The main barrier to scaling up use of the IHC resources that participants identified was the need to incorporate the lessons into the national curriculum.
conclusionThe mostly positive findings reflect the trial results, which showed large effects on the children's and the teachers' critical appraisal skills. The main limitations of this evaluation are that the investigators were responsible for both developing and evaluating the intervention.
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.