| Literature DB >> 32055405 |
Allen Nsangi1,2, Daniel Semakula1,2, Sarah E Rosenbaum3, Andrew David Oxman2,3, Matt Oxman3, Angela Morelli4, Astrid Austvoll-Dahlgren3, Margaret Kaseje5, Michael Mugisha6, Anne-Marie Uwitonze6, Claire Glenton3, Simon Lewin3,7, Atle Fretheim2,3, Nelson Kaulukusi Sewankambo1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People of all ages are flooded with health claims about treatment effects (benefits and harms of treatments). Many of these are not reliable, and many people lack skills to assess their reliability. Primary school is the ideal time to begin to teach these skills, to lay a foundation for continued learning and enable children to make well-informed health choices, as they grow older. However, these skills are rarely being taught and yet there are no rigorously developed and evaluated resources for teaching these skills.Entities:
Keywords: Critical appraisal; Critical thinking; Education; Pilot study; Teaching; User experience; User-centred design; User-testing
Year: 2020 PMID: 32055405 PMCID: PMC7008535 DOI: 10.1186/s40814-020-00565-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud ISSN: 2055-5784
Participants
| Participants | Description |
|---|---|
| Researchers, teachers and journalists from several countries | The initial brainstorming session at the kick-off meeting for the project included 18 people from Indonesia, Nepal, Norway, Uganda, and the United Kingdom with various backgrounds, including teachers, journalists, medical doctors, information designers, anthropologists, public health specialists, and health service researchers. |
| A national advisory board in Uganda | The advisory board for the project included fifteen members (2 women and 13 men) representing various stakeholders, including the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health, and Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development (which is responsible for children’s affairs in Uganda), and representatives from civil society and local government. |
| A teachers’ network in Uganda | The teachers’ network included 24 Ugandan primary school teachers (10 women and 14 men) in active practice from both rural and urban schools that were either government or privately owned [ |
| Schools in Uganda | Of the five schools that participated in both phases of the development process (pilot and user-testing), four were government (public) schools and one was a private school. One of the government schools was one of the biggest schools in the country, with a teacher-student ratio of 1:250. The other three government schools were of typical size, with a teacher-student ratio of 1:120. The private school was small, with a teacher-student ratio of 1:35, in comparison to the average Uganda school with a teacher student ration of 1:70. For logistic purposes (travel by the investigators), three of the schools that participated were located in the Kampala urban area and two were in the semi-urban area surrounding Kampala. All of the schools were poorly equipped. Lessons were in English, although English was not the primary language spoken at home for most of the children. All of the classes were year-5, for which the official starting age is 10. |
| A school in Kenya | The school in Kenya was a government school with about 400 children attending year-1 to year-8 classes. The year-5 children were mostly between 10 and 14 years old. |
| A school in Rwanda | The school in Rwanda was a government (public) primary and secondary school with over 3000 children. The language of instruction was English and the age range for year-5 children was 10 to 15 years old. |
| Children in Norway | A convenience sample of four 12-year-old girls who knew each other, from a nearby school participated in piloting a series of eight games together with the research team, partly in Norwegian and partly in English. |
| A school in Norway | The school in Norway was a private international school, with 18 children in each class. It was well equipped. Lessons were in English, although English was not the primary language spoken at home for most of the children. The three classes were year-7, for which the typical starting age is 11. |
Fig. 1User-centred design development in multiple iterative cycles
Six facets from the honeycomb framework
| Facet | Description |
|---|---|
| Usefulness | Does this product have practical value for this user? |
| Usability | How easy and satisfying is this product to use? |
| Understandability | Does the user recognise what the product is and do they understand the content? (own subjective experience of understanding) |
| Credibility | Is it trustworthy? |
| Desirability | Is it something the user wants - has a positive emotional response to? |
| Identification | Does the user feel the product is for” someone like me” or is it alienating/foreign-feeling? (e.g. age, gender, culture–appropriate) |
Coding of the importance of observations and feedback
| Code | Description |
|---|---|
| Very important negative finding (“show stopper”) | A problem that we should address for the resources to be effective |
| Important negative finding | A problem that we should probably address for part of the resources to be effective |
| Negative finding | A problem that we can easily address and probably will not prevent the resources from being effective |
| Very important positive finding | Praise that probably should inspire changes |
| Important positive finding | Praise that maybe should inspire changes |
| Positive finding | Praise that probably should not inspire changes |
| Very important constructive finding | A suggestion that probably should inspire changes |
| Important constructive finding | A suggestion that maybe should inspire changes |
| Constructive finding | A suggestion that probably should not inspire changes |
Fig. 2Development timeline
Key Concepts that are relevant for primary school children
| CLAIMS: ARE THEY JUSTIFIED? | |
| • Treatments may be harmful | |
| • Personal experiences or anecdotes (stories) are an unreliable basis for assessing the effects of most treatments | |
| • Widely used treatments or treatments that have been used for a long time are not necessarily beneficial or safe | |
| • New, brand-named, or more expensive treatments may not be better than available alternatives | |
| • Opinions of experts or authorities do not alone provide a reliable basis for deciding on the benefits and harms of treatments | |
| • Conflicting interests may result in misleading claims about the effects of treatments | |
| COMPARISONS: ARE THEY FAIR AND RELIABLE? | |
| • Evaluating the effects of treatments requires appropriate comparisons | |
| • Apart from the treatments being compared, the comparison groups need to be similar (i.e. ‘like needs to be compared with like’) | |
| • If possible, people should not know which of the treatments being compared they are receiving | |
| • Small studies in which few outcome events occur are usually not informative and the results may be misleading | |
| • The results of single comparisons of treatments can be misleading | |
| CHOICES: MAKING INFORMED HEALTH CHOICES | |
| • Treatments usually have beneficial and harmful effects | |
| CLAIMS: ARE THEY JUSTIFIED? | |
| • An outcome may be associated with a treatment, but not caused by the treatment | |
| • Increasing the amount of a treatment does not necessarily increase the benefits of a treatment and may cause harm | |
| • Hope or fear can lead to unrealistic expectations about the effects of treatments | |
| • Beliefs about how treatments work are not reliable predictors of the actual effects of treatments | |
| • Large, dramatic effects of treatments are rare | |
| COMPARISONS: ARE THEY FAIR AND RELIABLE? | |
| • People in the groups being compared need to be cared for similarly (apart from the treatments being compared) | |
| • | |
| • It is important to measure outcomes in | |
| • Results for a selected group of people | |
| • Reviews of treatment comparisons that do not use systematic methods can be misleading | |
| • Well done systematic reviews often reveal a lack of relevant evidence, but they provide the best basis for making judgements about the certainty of the evidence | |
| CHOICES: MAKING INFORMED HEALTH CHOICES | |
| • Fair comparisons of treatments should measure outcomes that are important |
Fig. 3Version 1 prototype of the IHC primary school resources
Fig. 4Version 2 prototype of the IHC primary school resources
Fig. 5Version 3 (final) of the IHC primary school resources
Contents of the children’s book and the teachers’ guide
Children’s book Lesson 1: Health, treatments and effects of treatments Lesson 2: Someone’s experience using a treatment Lesson 3: Other bad bases for claims about treatments (Part 1) Lesson 4: Other bad bases for claims about treatments (Part 2) Lesson 5: Comparisons of treatments Lesson 6: Fair comparisons of treatments Lesson 7: Big enough fair comparisons of treatments Lesson 8: Advantages and disadvantages of a treatment Lesson 9: Review of what is most important to remember from this book Glossary | Teachers’ Guide The teacher’s guide includes an introduction to the project and the resources, and the following for each lesson, in addition to the embedded chapter from the children’s book: • The objective of the lesson • A lesson preparation plan • A lesson plan • A list of materials that the teacher and children will need • A synopsis of the story • Keywords in the chapter • Review questions to ask the children after reading the story • Extra examples for illustrating the concepts • Background about examples used in the story • Teacher instructions for the classroom activity • Answers and explanations for the activity • Answers and explanations for the exercises • Background information, examples, and keyword definitions for teachers |
Fig. 6Repeating keywords where they first appear in the text
Fig. 7Background section of each chapter for teachers
• We used a user-centered design approach with a multi-disciplinary team. • We engaged end-users in the entire development process from brainstorming to piloting. • Non stringent grant conditions permitted ample time to generate and prototype ideas and then iteratively design the resources. • Time constraints in trying to synchronise the design schedule with the already busy school schedule |
| What is already known: | |
• There is an information overload regarding unsubstantiated claims of benefits and harms of treatments • People generally lack the skills to assess the reliability of treatment claims • Lack of resources to teach critical thinking particulary appraising treatment claims in primary schools in both low and high-income countries. | |
| What are the new findings: | |
• Use of a user-centered design approach to design resources • Benefits of multi-stake holder collaboration in the design process | |
| How might it impact on clinical practice in the foreseeable future? | |
| • We designed useful, understandable and transferable resources to teach critical thinking that children and teachers found relevant and easy to use in their particular contexts. |