Trial reportHealth education research2023
Teaching Australian high school students to think critically about health claims: a cluster randomized trial.
Trial report in Health education research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Making informed health decisions requires knowledge and skills in appraising health claims, and teaching adolescents these skills may prepare them for future decision-making. This cluster randomized trial evaluated the effectiveness of an educational intervention on students' ability to identify and appraise health claims. Nine Australian high schools (4 control and 5 intervention) were recruited, comprising 974 students (382 control and 592 intervention) in Grades 7-10. Intervention impact was evaluated through baseline and follow-up evaluation. Follow-up mean scores on questions (maximum score of 25) from the Claim Evaluation Tools database (primary outcome) showed minimal between-group difference (intervention versus control: 14.4 versus 13.6; difference 0.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.6 to 3.1; P = 0.52). Change scores were only slightly higher in the intervention group (difference 1.2 [95% CI -0.7 to 3.1; P = 0.21]). Between-group differences for secondary outcomes were also minimal. Most intervention group students 'trusted' and 'liked' the programme and found the content 'easy' and 'helpful'. Most teacher feedback was positive, some noting challenges of covering content in allocated time and maintaining student engagement. It is unlikely that the assessed educational intervention had a large effect. Future research priorities are suggested.
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.