Explore the vast range of titles available.

Adolescents encounter misleading claims about health interventions that can affect their health. Young people need to develop critical thinking skills to enable them to verify health claims and make informed choices. Schools could teach these important life skills, but educators need access to suitable learning resources that are aligned with their curriculum. The overall objective of this context analysis was to explore conditions for teaching critical thinking about health interventions using digital technology to lower secondary school students in Rwanda. We undertook a qualitative descriptive study using four methods: document review, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and observations. We reviewed 29 documents related to the national curriculum and ICT conditions in secondary schools. We conducted 8 interviews and 5 focus group discussions with students, teachers, and policy makers. We observed ICT conditions and use in five schools. We analysed the data using a framework analysis approach. Two major themes found. The first was demand for teaching critical thinking about health. The current curriculum explicitly aims to develop critical thinking competences in students. Critical thinking and health topics are taught across subjects. But understanding and teaching of critical thinking varies among teachers, and critical thinking about health is not being taught. The second theme was the current and expected ICT conditions. Most public schools have computers, projectors, and internet connectivity. However, use of ICT in teaching is limited, due in part to low computer to student ratios. There is a need for learning resources to develop critical thinking skills generally and critical thinking about health specifically. Such skills could be taught within the existing curriculum using available ICT technologies. Digital resources for teaching critical thinking about health should be designed so that they can be used flexibly across subjects and easily by teachers and students.

Claims about what improves or harms our health are ubiquitous. People need to be able to assess the reliability of these claims. We aimed to evaluate an intervention designed to teach primary school children to assess claims about the effects of treatments (ie, any action intended to maintain or improve health). In this cluster-randomised controlled trial, we included primary schools in the central region of Uganda that taught year-5 children (aged 10–12 years). We excluded international schools, special needs schools for children with auditory and visual impairments, schools that had participated in user-testing and piloting of the resources, infant and nursery schools, adult education schools, and schools that were difficult for us to access in terms of travel time. We randomly allocated a representative sample of eligible schools to either an intervention or control group. Intervention schools received the Informed Health Choices primary school resources (textbooks, exercise books, and a teachers' guide). Teachers attended a 2 day introductory workshop and gave nine 80 min lessons during one school term. The lessons addressed 12 concepts essential to assessing claims about treatment effects and making informed health choices. We did not intervene in the control schools. The primary outcome, measured at the end of the school term, was the mean score on a test with two multiple-choice questions for each of the 12 concepts and the proportion of children with passing scores on the same test. This trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry, number PACTR201606001679337. Between April 11, 2016, and June 8, 2016, 2960 schools were assessed for eligibility; 2029 were eligible, and a random sample of 170 were invited to recruitment meetings. After recruitment meetings, 120 eligible schools consented and were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (n=60, 76 teachers and 6383 children) or control group (n=60, 67 teachers and 4430 children). The mean score in the multiple-choice test for the intervention schools was 62·4% (SD 18·8) compared with 43·1% (15·2) for the control schools (adjusted mean difference 20·0%, 95% CI 17·3–22·7; p<0·00001). In the intervention schools, 3967 (69%) of 5753 children achieved a predetermined passing score (≥13 of 24 correct answers) compared with 1186 (27%) of 4430 children in the control schools (adjusted difference 50%, 95% CI 44–55). The intervention was effective for children with different levels of reading skills, but was more effective for children with better reading skills. The use of the Informed Health Choices primary school learning resources, after an introductory workshop for the teachers, led to a large improvement in the ability of children to assess claims about the effects of treatments. The results show that it is possible to teach primary school children to think critically in schools with large student to teacher ratios and few resources. Future studies should address how to scale up use of the resources, long-term effects, including effects on actual health choices, transferability to other countries, and how to build on this programme with additional primary and secondary school learning resources. Research Council of Norway.

The 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. We 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. Critical 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. There 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.

As part of the Informed Health Choices project, we developed a podcast called The Health Choices Programme to help improve the ability of people to assess claims about the benefits and harms of treatments. We aimed to evaluate the effects of the podcast on the ability of parents of primary school children in Uganda to assess claims about the effects of treatments. We did this randomised controlled trial in central Uganda. We recruited parents of children aged 10–12 years who were in their fifth year of school at 35 schools that were participating in a linked trial of the Informed Health Choices primary school resources. The parents were randomly allocated (1:1), via a web-based random number generator with block sizes of four and six, to listen to either the Informed Health Choices podcast (intervention group) or typical public service announcements about health issues (control group). Randomisation was stratified by parents' highest level of formal education attained (primary school, secondary school, or tertiary education) and the allocation of their children's school in the trial of the primary school resources (intervention vs control). The primary outcome, measured after listening to the entire podcast, was the mean score and the proportion of parents with passing scores on a test with two multiple choice questions for each of nine key concepts essential to assessing claims about treatments (18 questions in total). We did intention-to-treat analyses. This trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry, number PACTR201606001676150. We recruited parents between July 21, 2016, and Oct 7, 2016. We randomly assigned 675 parents to the podcast group (n=334) or the public service announcement group (n=341); 561 (83%) participants completed follow-up. The mean score for parents in the podcast group was 67·8% (SD 19·6) compared with 52·4% (17·6) in the control group (adjusted mean difference 15·5%, 95% CI 12·5–18·6; p<0·0001). In the podcast group, 203 (71%) of 288 parents had a predetermined passing score (≥11 of 18 correct answers) compared with 103 (38%) of 273 parents in the control group (adjusted difference 34%, 95% CI 26–41; p<0·0001). No adverse events were reported. Listening to the Informed Health Choices podcast led to a large improvement in the ability of parents to assess claims about the effects of treatments. Future studies should assess the long-term effects of use of the podcast, the effects on actual health choices and outcomes, and how transferable our findings are to other countries. Research Council of Norway.

Background Critical thinking about health choices is essential to avoid being misled by unreliable information and to use reliable information appropriately. The aim of this prospective meta-analysis was to synthesize the results of 1-year follow-up data from three cluster-randomized trials of an intervention designed to teach lower secondary school students to think critically about health choices. Only one other randomized trial has evaluated a school-based intervention to teach adolescents to think critically about health choices. That trial compared two teaching strategies to teach statistical reasoning. It did not assess long-term learning-retention. Methods We conducted the trials in Kenya, Rwanda, and Uganda. The intervention included providing a 2–3-day teacher training workshop and digital resources for ten lessons. The intervention focused on nine key concepts. We did not intervene in control schools. The primary outcome was a passing score on a test (≥ 9 of 18 multiple-choice questions answered correctly). We performed random effects meta-analyses to estimate the overall intervention effects. We calculated learning retention as the test results in the intervention schools after 1 year relative to just after the intervention, adjusted for chance. Results Altogether, 244 schools (11,344 students) took part in the three trials. Follow-up data was collected for 8298 students (73%). The overall odds ratio for the primary outcome after 1 year was 3.6 (95% CI: 1.9–7.1; p  = 0.0001) in favor of the intervention, whereas it was 5.5 (95% CI: 3.0–10.2) just after the intervention. This corresponds to 25.6% (95% CI: 21.1–30.0%) more students in the intervention schools passing the test after 1 year versus 33.3% (95% CI: 28.7–37.8%) just after the intervention. Overall, 2273 (52.6%) of 4324 students in intervention schools had a passing score after 1 year compared to 3397 (58.1%) of 5846 students just after the intervention, indicating 88.3% learning retention. Conclusions One year after the intervention, we still found a positive effect on the ability of students to think critically about health choices, but 5.5% fewer students in the intervention schools had a passing score. The certainty of the evidence was also lower due to 27% of students being lost to follow-up. Trial registration The protocol for this prospective meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO May 31, 2022, ID 336580. The three randomized trials were registered in the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry February 15, 2022, PACTR202203880375077; April 5, 2022, PACTR20220488391731; and April 14, 2022, PACTR202204861458660.

As part of a five year plan (2019-2023), the Informed Health Choices Project, is developing and evaluating resources for helping secondary school students learn to think critically about health claims and choices. We will bring together key stakeholders; such as secondary school teachers and students, our main target for the IHC secondary school resources, school administrators, policy makers, curriculum development specialists and parents, to enable us gain insight about the context. To ensure that stakeholders are effectively and appropriately engaged in the design, evaluation and dissemination of the learning resources.To evaluate the extent to which stakeholders were successfully engaged. Using a multi-stage stratified sampling method, we will identify a representative sample of secondary schools with varied characteristics that might modify the effects of the learning resources such as, the school location (rural, semi-urban or urban), ownership (private, public) and ICT facilities (under resourced, highly resourced). A sample of schools will be randomly selected from the schools in each stratum. We will aim to recruit a diverse sample of students and secondary school teachers from those schools. Other stakeholders will be purposively selected to ensure a diverse range of experience and expertise. Together with the teacher and student networks and the advisory panels, we will establish measurable success criteria that reflect the objectives of engaging stakeholders at the start of the project and evaluate the extent to which those criteria were met at the end of the project. We aim for an increase in research uptake, improve quality and appropriateness of research results, accountability and social justice.

Introduction The Informed Health Choices (IHC) secondary school intervention aimed to teach students to assess claims about treatments. This follow-up of a cluster randomized trial assessed the retention of knowledge and the application of the nine prioritized IHC key concepts 1 year after the intervention. Methods We conducted a random assignment of 80 secondary schools in Western Kenya into either the intervention ( n  = 40) or control ( n  = 40) group. Both groups adhered to the standard curriculum. Teachers from the intervention group were invited to participate in a 2-day training workshop and were granted access to “Be Smart About Your Health” digital resources, comprising 10 lessons. These lessons, focused on nine prioritized IHC concepts, delivered over a single school term from May to August 2022. The digital resources were accessible online via smartphones or computers and could also be downloaded for offline use. The primary outcome measure, assessed at the end of the school term and again after 1 year, was the percentage of students achieving a passing score (defined as ≥ 9 out of 18 correct answers) on the “Critical Thinking about Health” test. Results Out of the total 3360 students involved in the trial, 2446 (72.8%) completed the test after 1 year. Within the intervention group, 728 out of 1369 students (53.2%) achieved a passing score after 1 year, compared to 61.7% immediately post-intervention. In contrast, in the control group, 347 out of 1077 students (32.2%) had a passing score after 1 year. The adjusted difference in passing rates between the intervention and control groups after 1 year was 20.8% (with a 95% confidence interval of 13.6 to 28.0%), compared to 27.3% (with a 95% confidence interval of 19.6 to 34.9%) immediately after the intervention. Conclusion This study demonstrates that students were able to retain knowledge and the ability to apply the IHC key concepts, 1 year after the intervention. But fewer students in the intervention group had a passing score after 1 year compared to just after the intervention. Highlighting follow-up training is likely necessary to reinforce these skills over time. Trial registration Pan African Clinical Trial Registry, trial identifier: PACTR202204883917313. Registered on 05/04/2022.

Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of the Informed Health Choices secondary school intervention on the ability of students in Rwanda to think critically and make informed health choices after 1 year. Methods This was a two-arm cluster-randomized trial conducted in 84 lower secondary schools from 10 districts representing five provinces of Rwanda. We used stratified randomization to allocate schools 1:1 to the intervention or control arm. One class in each intervention school had ten 40-min lessons taught by a trained teacher in addition to the usual curriculum. Control schools followed the usual curriculum. The primary outcome was a passing score (≥ 9 out of 18 questions answered correctly) for students on the Critical Thinking about Health Test completed 1 year after the intervention. We conducted an intention to treat analysis using generalized linear mixed models, accounting for the cluster design using random intercepts. Results After 1 year, 35 of 42 teachers (83.3%) and 1181 of 1556 students (75.9%) in the control arm completed the test. In the intervention arm, 35 of 42 teachers (83.3%) and 1238 of 1572 students (78.8%) completed the test. The proportion of students who had a passing score in the intervention arm was 625/1238 (50.5%) compared to 230/1181 (19.5%) in the control arm (adjusted odds ratio 7.6 [95% CI: 4.6–12.6], p  < 0.0001). The adjusted difference in the proportion of students with a passing score was 32.2% (95% CI 24.5–39.8%). Conclusions The IHC secondary school intervention was effective after 1 year. However, the size of the effect was smaller than immediately after the intervention (adjusted difference 32.2% vs 37.2%) due to decay in the proportion of students in intervention schools with a passing score (50.5% vs 58.2%). Trial registration Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (PCTR), trial identifier: PACTR202203880375077. Registered on February 15, 2022.

Introduction We assessed the effects of the Informed Health Choices (IHC) secondary school intervention on students’ ability to think critically about choices 1 year after the intervention. Methods We randomized eighty secondary schools to the intervention or control (usual curriculum). The schools were randomly selected from the central region of Uganda and included rural and urban, government, and privately-owned schools. One randomly selected class of year-2 students (ages 14–17) from each school participated in the trial. The intervention included a 2-day teacher training workshop, 10 lessons accessed online by teachers and delivered in classrooms during one school term (May–August 2022). The lessons addressed nine prioritized IHC concepts. We used two multiple-choice questions for each concept to evaluate the students’ ability to think critically about choices at both the end of the school term and again after 1 year. The primary outcome was the proportion of students with a passing score (≥ 9 of 18 questions answered correctly) on the “Critical Thinking about Health” (CTH) test. Results After 1-year, 71% (1749/2477) of the students in the intervention schools and 71% (1684/2376) of the students in the control schools completed the CTH test. In the intervention schools, 53% (934/1749) of students who completed the test had a passing score compared to 33% (557/1684) of students in the control schools (adjusted difference 22%, 95% CI 16–28). Conclusions The effect of the IHC secondary school intervention on students’ ability to assess health-related claims was largely sustained for at least 1 year. Trial registration Pan African Clinical Trial Registry PACTR202204861458660. Registered on 4 April 2022.

ObjectivesTo make informed health choices, and avoid waste and unnecessary suffering, people need critical thinking skills. However, like health interventions, educational interventions can have adverse effects. In this systematic review, the objective was to assess the extent to which researchers have included potential adverse effects in studies of interventions intended to improve the critical thinking of laypeople about health choices.DesignThis study was a systematic review, in which we updated the search for an earlier systematic review of intended effects of relevant interventions. The earlier review did not address potential adverse effects. We did not update the analysis of intended effects.Data sourcesWe searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Epistemonikos, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) and Web of Science up to March 2025. In addition to studies from the original review and updated search, we included any additional studies included in a similar, even earlier review. Our unit of analysis was study report (eg, journal article).Eligibility criteriaWe included all studies from the original review. We applied the same inclusion criteria to the results of the updated search: the study included a comparison, the population was laypeople and the intervention was intended to improve understanding of ≥1 key concept for informed health choices.Data extraction and synthesisWe extracted data about study design (randomised trial or other), participants (children, adolescents or adults), study setting (countries), main intervention (resources delivered to participants) and comparator (usual/no intervention or other). For the analysis, we extracted verbatim text describing any assessment of a potential adverse effect of the intervention. We conducted a narrative synthesis of the extracted data.ResultsWe included 35 reports of quantitative studies (including multi-method and mixed-methods studies). Most often, the study was a randomised trial, the setting was a high-income country, the population included adults (including university students) and the intervention was school-based (including university). In one of the 35 reports, authors described assessing a potential adverse effect.ConclusionTo our knowledge, this is the first systematic review assessing the extent to which researchers have assessed adverse effects of any category of educational interventions. Our review shows that researchers generally have not assessed potential adverse effects of interventions to improve critical thinking about health choices. Researchers should pay more attention to such effects, while policymakers and educators making decisions about implementing relevant interventions should consider the lack of evidence. The findings of this study suggest a need for research that facilitates assessing potential adverse effects of interventions to improve critical thinking about health choices.