Establishing a library of resources to help people understand key concepts in assessing treatment claims—The “Critical thinking and Appraisal Resource Library” (CARL)

Background People are frequently confronted with untrustworthy claims about the effects of treatments. Uncritical acceptance of these claims can lead to poor, and sometimes dangerous, treatment decisions, and wasted time and money. Resources to help people learn to think critically about treatment claims are scarce, and they are widely scattered. Furthermore, very few learning-resources have been assessed to see if they improve knowledge and behavior. Objectives Our objectives were to develop the Critical thinking and Appraisal Resource Library (CARL). This library was to be in the form of a database containing learning resources for those who are responsible for encouraging critical thinking about treatment claims, and was to be made available online. We wished to include resources for groups we identified as ‘intermediaries’ of knowledge, i.e. teachers of schoolchildren, undergraduates and graduates, for example those teaching evidence-based medicine, or those communicating treatment claims to the public. In selecting resources, we wished to draw particular attention to those resources that had been formally evaluated, for example, by the creators of the resource or independent research groups. Methods CARL was populated with learning-resources identified from a variety of sources—two previously developed but unmaintained inventories; systematic reviews of learning-interventions; online and database searches; and recommendations by members of the project group and its advisors. The learning-resources in CARL were organised by ‘Key Concepts’ needed to judge the trustworthiness of treatment claims, and were made available online by the James Lind Initiative in Testing Treatments interactive (TTi) English (www.testingtreatments.org/category/learning-resources).TTi English also incorporated the database of Key Concepts and the Claim Evaluation Tools developed through the Informed Healthcare Choices (IHC) project (informedhealthchoices.org). Results We have created a database of resources called CARL, which currently contains over 500 open-access learning-resources in a variety of formats: text, audio, video, webpages, cartoons, and lesson materials. These are aimed primarily at ‘Intermediaries’, that is, ‘teachers’, ‘communicators’, ‘advisors’, ‘researchers’, as well as for independent ‘learners’. The resources included in CARL are currently accessible at www.testingtreatments.org/category/learning-resources Conclusions We hope that ready access to CARL will help to promote the critical thinking about treatment claims, needed to help improve healthcare choices

Evaluation of a Web Portal for Improving Public Access to Evidence-Based Health Information and Health Literacy Skills: A Pragmatic Trial

Background: Using the conceptual framework of shared decision-making and evidence-based practice, a web portal was developed to serve as a generic (non disease-specific) tailored intervention to improve the lay public’s health literacy skills. Objective: To evaluate the effects of the web portal compared to no intervention in a real-life setting. Methods: A pragmatic randomised controlled parallel trial using simple randomisation of 96 parents who had children aged ,4 years. Parents were allocated to receive either access to the portal or no intervention, and assigned three tasks to perform over a three-week period. These included a searching task, a critical appraisal task, and reporting on perceptions about participation. Data were collected from March through June 2011. Results: Use of the web portal was found to improve attitudes towards searching for health information. This variable was identified as the most important predictor of intention to search in both samples. Participants considered the web portal to have good usability, usefulness, and credibility. The intervention group showed slight increases in the use of evidencebased information, critical appraisal skills, and participation compared to the group receiving no intervention, but these differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Despite the fact that the study was underpowered, we found that the web portal may have a positive effect on attitudes towards searching for health information. Furthermore, participants considered the web portal to be a relevant tool. It is important to continue experimenting with web-based resources in order to increase user participation in health care decision-making. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT0126679

Critical thinking in healthcare and education

Imagine you are a primary care doctor. A patient comes into your office with acute, atypical chest pain. Immediately you consider the patient’s sex and age, and you begin to think about what questions to ask and what diagnoses and diagnostic tests to consider. You will also need to think about what treatments to consider and how to communicate with the patient and potentially with the patient’s family and other healthcare providers. Some of what you do will be done reflexively, with little explicit thought, but caring for most patients also requires you to think critically about what you are going to do. Critical thinking, the ability to think clearly and rationally about what to do or what to believe, is essential for the practice of medicine. Few doctors are likely to argue with this. Yet, until recently, the UK regulator the General Medical Council and similar bodies in North America did not mention “critical thinking” anywhere in their standards for licensing and accreditation,1 and critical thinking is not explicitly taught or assessed in most education programmes for health professionals. Moreover, although more than 2800 articles indexed by PubMed have “critical thinking” in the title or abstract, most are about nursing. We argue that it is important for clinicians and patients to learn to think critically and that the teaching and learning of these skills should be considered explicitly. Given the shared interest in critical thinking with broader education, we also highlight why healthcare and education professionals and researchers need to work together to enable people to think critically about the health choices they make throughout life.</p

Preferences of Hungarian consumers for quality, access and price attributes of health care services — result of a discrete choice experiment

In 2010, a household survey was carried out in Hungary among 1037 respondents to study consumer preferences and willingness to pay for health care services. In this paper, we use the data from the discrete choice experiments included in the survey, to elicit the preferences of health care consumers about the choice of health care providers. Regression analysis is used to estimate the effect of the improvement of service attributes (quality, access, and price) on patients’ choice, as well as the differences among the socio-demographic groups. We also estimate the marginal willingness to pay for the improvement in attribute levels by calculating marginal rates of substitution. The results show that respondents from a village or the capital, with low education and bad health status are more driven by the changes in the price attribute when choosing between health care providers. Respondents value the good skills and reputation of the physician and the attitude of the personnel most, followed by modern equipment and maintenance of the office/hospital. Access attributes (travelling and waiting time) are less important. The method of discrete choice experiment is useful to reveal patients’ preferences, and might support the development of an evidence-based and sustainable health policy on patient payments

Are German patients burdened by the practice charge for physician visits ('Praxisgebuehr')? A cross sectional analysis of socio-economic and health related factors

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In 2004, a practice charge for physician visits ('Praxisgebuehr') was implemented in the German health care system, mainly in order to reduce expenditures of sickness funds by reducing outpatient physician visits. In the statutory sickness funds, all adults now have to pay € 10 at their first physician visit in each 3 month period, except for vaccinations and preventive services. This study looks at the effect of this new patient fee on delaying or avoiding physician visits, with a special emphasis on different income groups.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Six representative surveys (conducted between 2004 and 2006) of the Bertelsmann Healthcare Monitor were analysed, comprising 7,769 women and men aged 18 to 79 years. The analyses are based on stratified analyses and logistic regression models, including a focus on the subgroup having a chronic disease.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Two results can be highlighted. First, avoiding or delaying a physician visit due to this fee is seen most often among younger and healthier adults. Second, those in the lowest income group are much more affected in this way than the better of. The multivariate analysis in the subgroup of respondents having a chronic disease shows, for example, that this reaction is reported 2.45 times more often in the lowest income group than in the highest income group (95% CI: 1.90–3.15).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The analyses indicate that the effects of the practice charge differ by socio-economic group. It would be important to assess these effects in more detail, especially the effects on health care quality and health outcomes. It can be assumed, however, that avoiding or delaying physician visits jeopardizes both, and that health inequalities are increasing due to the practice charge.</p

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 10: Taking equity into consideration when assessing the findings of a systematic review

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 9: Assessing the applicability of the findings of a systematic review

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 17: Dealing with insufficient research evidence

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers

A Televised, Web-Based Randomised Trial of an Herbal Remedy (Valerian) for Insomnia

BACKGROUND: This trial was conducted as part of a project that aims to enhance public understanding and use of research in decisions about healthcare by enabling viewers to participate in research and to follow the process, through television reports and on the web. Valerian is an herbal over-the-counter drug that is widely used for insomnia. Systematic reviews have found inconsistent and inconclusive results about its effects. METHODS: Participants were recruited through a weekly nationally televised health program in Norway. Enrolment and data collection were over the Internet. 405 participants who were 18 to 75 years old and had insomnia completed a two week diary-keeping run-in period without treatment and were randomised and mailed valerian or placebo tablets for two weeks. All participants and investigators were blind to treatment until after the analysis was completed. FINDINGS: For the primary outcome of a minimally important improvement in self-reported sleep quality (> or = 0.5 units on a 7 point scale), the difference between the valerian group (29%) and the placebo group (21%) was not statistically significant (difference 7.5%; 95% CI-0.9 to 15.9; p = 0.08). On the global self-assessment question at the end of the treatment period 5.5% (95% CI 0.2 to 10.8) more participants in the valerian group perceived their sleep as better or much better (p = 0.04). There were similar trends favouring the valerian group for night awakenings (difference = 6.0%, 95% CI-0.5 to 12.5) and sleep duration (difference = 7.5%, 95% CI-1.0 to 16.1). There were no serious adverse events and no important or statistically significant differences in minor adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Based on this and previous studies, valerian appears to be safe, but with modest beneficial effects at most on insomnia compared to placebo. The combined use of television and the Internet in randomised trials offers opportunities to answer questions about the effects of health care interventions and to improve public understanding and use of randomised trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN72748991