Literature DB >> 26107552

Key concepts that people need to understand to assess claims about treatment effects.

Astrid Austvoll-Dahlgren1, Andrew D Oxman2, Iain Chalmers3, Allen Nsangi4, Claire Glenton2, Simon Lewin2,5, Angela Morelli2, Sarah Rosenbaum6, Daniel Semakula4, Nelson Sewankambo4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: People are confronted with claims about the effects of treatments and health policies daily. Our objective was to develop a list of concepts that may be important for people to understand when assessing claims about treatment effects.
METHODS: An initial list of concepts was generated by the project team by identifying key concepts in literature and tools written for the general public, journalists, and health professionals, and consideration of concepts related to assessing the certainty of evidence for treatment effects. We invited key researchers, journalists, teachers and others with expertise in health literacy and teaching or communicating evidence-based health care to patients to act as the project's advisory group.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine members of the advisory group provided feedback on the list of concepts and judged the list to be sufficiently complete and organised appropriately. The list includes 32 concepts divided into six groups: (i) Recognising the need for systematic reviews of fair tests, (ii) Judging whether a comparison of treatments is fair comparison, (iii) Understanding the role of chance, (iv) Considering all the relevant fair comparisons, (v) Understanding the results of fair comparisons of treatments, (vi) Judging whether fair comparisons of treatments are relevant.
CONCLUSION: The concept list provides a starting point for developing and evaluating resources to improve people's ability to assess treatment effects. The concepts are considered to be universally relevant, and include considerations that can help people assess claims about the effects of treatments, including claims that are found in mass media reports, in advertisements and in personal communication.
© 2015 Chinese Cochrane Center, West China Hospital of Sichuan University and Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Evidence based medicine; health literacy; user involvement

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26107552     DOI: 10.1111/jebm.12160

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Evid Based Med        ISSN: 1756-5391


  20 in total

1.  Comparison of the Informed Health Choices Key Concepts Framework to other frameworks relevant to teaching and learning how to think critically about health claims and choices: a systematic review.

Authors:  Andrew D Oxman; Laura Martínez García
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2020-03-05

2.  Quality of information in news media reports about the effects of health interventions: Systematic review and meta-analyses.

Authors:  Matt Oxman; Lillebeth Larun; Giordano Pérez Gaxiola; Dima Alsaid; Anila Qasim; Christopher James Rose; Karin Bischoff; Andrew David Oxman
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2021-06-01

3.  Educational interventions to improve people's understanding of key concepts in assessing the effects of health interventions: a systematic review protocol.

Authors:  Leila Cusack; Chris B Del Mar; Iain Chalmers; Tammy C Hoffmann
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2016-02-25

Review 4.  Effects of School-Based Educational Interventions for Enhancing Adolescents Abilities in Critical Appraisal of Health Claims: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Lena V Nordheim; Malene W Gundersen; Birgitte Espehaug; Øystein Guttersrud; Signe Flottorp
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-08-24       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 5.  Interventions and assessment tools addressing key concepts people need to know to appraise claims about treatment effects: a systematic mapping review.

Authors:  Astrid Austvoll-Dahlgren; Allen Nsangi; Daniel Semakula
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2016-12-29

6.  Measuring ability to assess claims about treatment effects: a latent trait analysis of items from the 'Claim Evaluation Tools' database using Rasch modelling.

Authors:  Astrid Austvoll-Dahlgren; Øystein Guttersrud; Allen Nsangi; Daniel Semakula; Andrew D Oxman
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-05-25       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Does the use of the Informed Healthcare Choices (IHC) primary school resources improve the ability of grade-5 children in Uganda to assess the trustworthiness of claims about the effects of treatments: protocol for a cluster-randomised trial.

Authors:  Allen Nsangi; Daniel Semakula; Andrew D Oxman; Matthew Oxman; Sarah Rosenbaum; Astrid Austvoll-Dahlgren; Laetitia Nyirazinyoye; Margaret Kaseje; Iain Chalmers; Atle Fretheim; Nelson K Sewankambo
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 2.279

8.  Establishing a library of resources to help people understand key concepts in assessing treatment claims-The "Critical thinking and Appraisal Resource Library" (CARL).

Authors:  John C Castle; Iain Chalmers; Patricia Atkinson; Douglas Badenoch; Andrew D Oxman; Astrid Austvoll-Dahlgren; Lena Nordheim; L Kendall Krause; Lisa M Schwartz; Steven Woloshin; Amanda Burls; Paola Mosconi; Tammy Hoffmann; Leila Cusack; Loai Albarqouni; Paul Glasziou
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-07-24       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Can an educational podcast improve the ability of parents of primary school children to assess the reliability of claims made about the benefits and harms of treatments: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Daniel Semakula; Allen Nsangi; Matt Oxman; Astrid Austvoll-Dahlgren; Sarah Rosenbaum; Margaret Kaseje; Laetitia Nyirazinyoye; Atle Fretheim; Iain Chalmers; Andrew D Oxman; Nelson K Sewankambo
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2017-01-21       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Measuring ability to assess claims about treatment effects: the development of the 'Claim Evaluation Tools'.

Authors:  Astrid Austvoll-Dahlgren; Daniel Semakula; Allen Nsangi; Andrew David Oxman; Iain Chalmers; Sarah Rosenbaum; Øystein Guttersrud
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-05-17       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.