Astrid Austvoll-Dahlgren1, Andrew D Oxman2, Iain Chalmers3, Allen Nsangi4, Claire Glenton2, Simon Lewin2,5, Angela Morelli2, Sarah Rosenbaum6, Daniel Semakula4, Nelson Sewankambo4. 1. Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Prevention, Health promotion, and Organisation Unit, Oslo, Norway. 2. Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Global Health Unit, Oslo, Norway. 3. James Lind Initiative, Oxford, UK. 4. Makerere University College of Health Sciences, New Mulago Hospital Complex, Kampala, Uganda. 5. Health Systems Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa. 6. Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Communication Unit, BOKS 7004 St.Olavsplass, 0130 Oslo, Norway.
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.
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.
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
Authors: Astrid Austvoll-Dahlgren; Øystein Guttersrud; Allen Nsangi; Daniel Semakula; Andrew D Oxman Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-05-25 Impact factor: 2.692
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
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
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
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