Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32055405›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2020

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.

Allen Nsangi, Daniel Semakula, Sarah E Rosenbaum, Andrew David Oxman, Matt Oxman, Angela Morelli, Astrid Austvoll-Dahlgren, Margaret Kaseje, Michael Mugisha, Anne-Marie Uwitonze and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

14 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Allen Nsangi1College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Daniel Semakula1College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Sarah E Rosenbaum3Centre for Informed Health Choices, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Postboks 222 Skøyen, 0213 Oslo, Norway.
Andrew David Oxman2University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Matt Oxman3Centre for Informed Health Choices, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Postboks 222 Skøyen, 0213 Oslo, Norway.
Angela MorelliInfodesignlab, Oslo, Norway.
Astrid Austvoll-Dahlgren3Centre for Informed Health Choices, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Postboks 222 Skøyen, 0213 Oslo, Norway.
Margaret Kaseje5Great Lakes University of Kisumu, Kisumu, Kenya.
Michael Mugisha6University of Rwanda, Kigali, Rwanda.
Anne-Marie Uwitonze6University of Rwanda, Kigali, Rwanda.
Claire Glenton3Centre for Informed Health Choices, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Postboks 222 Skøyen, 0213 Oslo, Norway.
Simon Lewin3Centre for Informed Health Choices, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Postboks 222 Skøyen, 0213 Oslo, Norway.
Atle Fretheim2University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Nelson Kaulukusi Sewankambo1College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Norwegian Institute of Public Health · NOMakerere University · UGUniversity of Oslo · NOUniversity of Rwanda · RWGreat Lakes University of Kisumu · KE

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople of all ages are flooded with health claims about treatment effects (benefits and harms of treatments). Many of these are not reliable, and many people lack skills to assess their reliability. Primary school is the ideal time to begin to teach these skills, to lay a foundation for continued learning and enable children to make well-informed health choices, as they grow older. However, these skills are rarely being taught and yet there are no rigorously developed and evaluated resources for teaching these skills.

objectivesTo develop the Informed Health Choices (IHC) resources (for learning and teaching people to assess claims about the effects of treatments) for primary school children and teachers.

methodsWe prototyped, piloted, and user-tested resources in four settings that included Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, and Norway. We employed a user-centred approach to designing IHC resources which entailed multiple iterative cycles of development (determining content scope, generating ideas, prototyping, testing, analysing and refining) based on continuous close collaboration with teachers and children.

resultsWe identified 24 Key Concepts that are important for children to learn. We developed a comic book and a separate exercise book to introduce and explain the Key Concepts to the children, combining lessons with exercises and classroom activities. We developed a teachers' guide to supplement the resources for children.

conclusionBy employing a user-centred approach to designing resources to teach primary children to think critically about treatment claims and choices, we developed learning resources that end users experienced as useful, easy to use and well-suited to use in diverse classroom settings.

Indexed as

Critical appraisalCritical thinkingEducationPilot studyTeachingUser-centred designUser experienceUser-testing

Identifiers

PMID32055405
PMCPMC7008535
OpenAlexW3010504163

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.