Trial reportJMIR public health and surveillance2026
A Critical Health Literacy Podcast to Counter Health Misinformation at Scale: Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Widespread misinformation and low critical health literacy pose major barriers to public health worldwide. Rapid, scalable, and evidence-informed digital interventions are urgently needed to strengthen the public's ability to make informed health decisions. Objective: Informed by critical health literacy frameworks, we developed and tested a brief, story-based critical thinking podcast, Parents Making Informed Health Choices, that was designed to improve critical health literacy and decision-making among US parents. Methods: We conducted a 2-phase study. First, 5 parents participated in the user testing of the prototype podcast and provided qualitative feedback to refine content and delivery. The final podcast delivered 9 evidence-based practice principles through relatable scenarios about mental and physical health. In the second phase, we conducted a 2-arm randomized controlled trial (N=250) with a national online sample of US parents. Participants were randomly assigned to listen to either the critical thinking podcast (n=128, 51.2%) or a control podcast (n=122, 48.8%). There were no significant preintervention group differences except for age, which was controlled for in all analyses. Primary outcomes included critical thinking about health claims, intended health behaviors, attitudes toward evidence-based mental health practices, and treatment preferences. Results: On average, parents were aged 35 (SD 7.8) years; 49% (121/247) were female, 75% (185/248) were White; and 60.0% (148/248) had a bachelor's degree or higher. Parents who listened to the critical thinking podcast demonstrated significantly improved critical thinking about health information compared to the control group (B=2.56; P<.001; ∆R2=0.06). They also reported stronger critical thinking-aligned intended behaviors (B=0.252; P=.001; ∆R2=0.015), and more evidence-informed treatment preferences (B=4.89; P=.038; ∆R2=0.02). The effect sizes were small to moderate across outcomes. Conclusions: Findings suggest that a brief, story-based digital podcast can meaningfully improve critical thinking about health information, intended behaviors, and evidence-based practice attitudes. Podcasts represent a promising, low-cost, and scalable strategy for promoting critical health literacy and countering health misinformation in the general public.
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.