Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35108268›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Learning to think critically about health using digital technology in Ugandan lower secondary schools: A contextual analysis.

Ronald Ssenyonga, Nelson K Sewankambo, Solomon Kevin Mugagga, Esther Nakyejwe, Faith Chesire, Michael Mugisha, Allen Nsangi, Daniel Semakula, Matt Oxman, Laetitia Nyirazinyoye and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.2field-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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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.

Ronald SsenyongaFaculty of Medicine, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Nelson K SewankamboDepartment of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Solomon Kevin MugaggaDepartment of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Esther NakyejweDepartment of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Faith ChesireFaculty of Medicine, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Michael MugishaFaculty of Medicine, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Allen NsangiDepartment of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.ORCID 0000-0001-8702-9217
Daniel SemakulaDepartment of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Matt OxmanCentre for Epidemic Interventions Research, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Laetitia NyirazinyoyeSchool of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Rwanda, Kigali, Rwanda.
Simon LewinCentre for Epidemic Interventions Research, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-7521-9515
Margaret KasejeTropical Institute of Community Health and Development, Kisumu, Kenya.
Andrew D OxmanCentre for Epidemic Interventions Research, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Sarah RosenbaumCentre for Epidemic Interventions Research, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-8334-7664
Makerere University · UGNorwegian Institute of Public Health · NOUniversity of Oslo · NOTropical Institute Of Community Health And Development · KEUniversity of Rwanda · RW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe world is awash with claims about the effects of health interventions. Many of these claims are untrustworthy because the bases are unreliable. Acting on unreliable claims can lead to waste of resources and poor health outcomes. Yet, most people lack the necessary skills to appraise the reliability of health claims. The Informed Health Choices (IHC) project aims to equip young people in Ugandan lower secondary schools with skills to think critically about health claims and to make good health choices by developing and evaluating digital learning resources. To ensure that we create resources that are suitable for use in Uganda's secondary schools and can be scaled up if found effective, we conducted a context analysis. We aimed to better understand opportunities and barriers related to demand for the resources, how the learning content overlaps with existing curriculum and conditions in secondary schools for accessing and using digital resources, in order to inform resource development.

methodsWe used a mixed methods approach and collected both qualitative and quantitative data. We conducted document analyses, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, school visits, and a telephone survey regarding information communication and technology (ICT). We used a nominal group technique to obtain consensus on the appropriate number and length of IHC lessons that should be planned in a school term. We developed and used a framework from the objectives to code the transcripts and generated summaries of query reports in Atlas.ti version 7.

findingsCritical thinking is a key competency in the lower secondary school curriculum. However, the curriculum does not explicitly make provision to teach critical thinking about health, despite a need acknowledged by curriculum developers, teachers and students. Exam oriented teaching and a lack of learning resources are additional important barriers to teaching critical thinking about health. School closures and the subsequent introduction of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated teachers' use of digital equipment and learning resources for teaching. Although the government is committed to improving access to ICT in schools and teachers are open to using ICT, access to digital equipment, unreliable power and internet connections remain important hinderances to use of digital learning resources.

conclusionsThere is a recognized need for learning resources to teach critical thinking about health in Ugandan lower secondary schools. Digital learning resources should be designed to be usable even in schools with limited access and equipment. Teacher training on use of ICT for teaching is needed.

Indexed as

AdolescentChoice BehaviorCurriculumDigital TechnologyFemaleFocus GroupsHealth BehaviorHealth EducationHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInformation DisseminationLearningMaleReproducibility of ResultsSchoolsStudents

Identifiers

PMID35108268
PMCPMC8809610
OpenAlexW4210791921

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.