Development of a complex intervention to improve health literacy skills

Background Providing insight into the developmental processes involved in building interventions is an important way to ensure methodological transparency and inform future research efforts. The objective of this study was to describe the development of a web portal designed to improve health literacy skills among the public. Methods The web portal was tailored to address three key barriers to obtaining information, using the conceptual frameworks of shared decision-making and evidence-based practice and based on explicit criteria for selecting the content and form of the intervention. Results The web portal targeted the general public and took the form of structured sets of tools. Content included: an introduction to research methods, help on how to find evidence-based health information efficiently based on the steps of evidence-based practice, an introduction to critical appraisal, information about patient participation rights in decision-making, and a decision aid for consultations. Conclusions The web portal was designed in a systematic and transparent way and address key barriers to obtaining and acting upon reliable health information. The web portal provides open access to the tools and can be used independently by health care users, or during consultations with health professionals

Enhancing the usability of systematic reviews by improving the consideration and description of interventions

The importance of adequate intervention descriptions in minimising research waste and improving research usability and reproducibility has gained attention in the past few years. Nearly all focus to date has been on intervention reporting in randomised trials. Yet clinicians are encouraged to use systematic reviews, whenever available, rather than single trials to inform their practice. This article explores the problem and implications of incomplete intervention details during the planning, conduct, and reporting of systematic reviews and makes recommendations for review authors, peer reviewers, and journal editors

Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: Critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group

BACKGROUND: A number of approaches have been used to grade levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations. The use of many different approaches detracts from one of the main reasons for having explicit approaches: to concisely characterise and communicate this information so that it can easily be understood and thereby help people make well-informed decisions. Our objective was to critically appraise six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations as a basis for agreeing on characteristics of a common, sensible approach to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations. METHODS: Six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and strength of recommendations were selected and someone familiar with each system prepared a description of each of these. Twelve assessors independently evaluated each system based on twelve criteria to assess the sensibility of the different approaches. Systems used by 51 organisations were compared with these six approaches. RESULTS: There was poor agreement about the sensibility of the six systems. Only one of the systems was suitable for all four types of questions we considered (effectiveness, harm, diagnosis and prognosis). None of the systems was considered usable for all of the target groups we considered (professionals, patients and policy makers). The raters found low reproducibility of judgements made using all six systems. Systems used by 51 organisations that sponsor clinical practice guidelines included a number of minor variations of the six systems that we critically appraised. CONCLUSIONS: All of the currently used approaches to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations have important shortcomings

The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurat

Prioritising Informed Health Choices Key Concepts for those impacted by cancer: a protocol [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]

Background: Few areas of health have been as insidiously influenced by misinformation as cancer. Thus, interventions that can help people impacted by cancer reduce the extent to which they are victims of misinformation are necessary. The Informed Health Choices (IHC) initiative has developed Key Concepts that can be used in the development of interventions for evaluating the trustworthiness of claims about the effects of health treatments. We are developing an online education programme called Informed Health Choices-Cancer (IHC-C) based on the IHC Key Concepts. We will provide those impacted by cancer with the knowledge and skills necessary to think critically about the reliability of health information and claims and make informed choices. Methods: We will establish a steering group (SG) of 12 key stakeholders, including oncology specialists and academics. In addition, we will establish a patient and public involvement (PPI) panel of 20 people impacted by cancer. After training the members on the Key Concepts and the prioritisation process, we will conduct a two-round prioritisation process. In the first round, 12 SG members and four PPI panel members will prioritise Key Concepts for inclusion. In the second round, the remaining 16 PPI members will undertake the prioritisation based on the prioritised Key Concepts from the first round. Participants in both rounds will use a structured judgement form to rate the importance of the Key Concepts for inclusion in the online IHC-C programme. A consensus meeting will be held, where members will reach a consensus on the Key Concepts to be included and rank the order in which the prioritised Key Concepts will be addressed in the IHC-C programme. Conclusions: At the end of this process, we will identify which Key Concepts should be included and the order in which they should be addressed in the IHC-C programme

A Review of Pink Salmon in the Pacific, Arctic, and Atlantic Oceans

The Northern Hemisphere Pink Salmon Expert Group Meeting was held on October 2–3, 2022 in Vancouver, Canada, immediately preceding the International Year of the Salmon (IYS) Synthesis Symposium. The rapid expansion of pink salmon was the theme for the meeting, and experts came together to discuss the current state of knowledge for pink salmon. Specific topics of focus included the range expansion into the Atlantic and Arctic oceans, trends in distribution and abundance, research and monitoring approaches, potential inter-specific interactions, mitigation efforts, and plans for future collaborations. The outcomes of the meeting were presented at the IYS Synthesis Symposium and are further disseminated through this NPAFC Technical Report. The Executive Summary section of this report provides a brief background, a condensed overview of each topic, and concludes with overarching takeaway messages that are intended to guide future collaborations.publishedVersio

A Review of Pink Salmon in the Pacific, Arctic, and Atlantic Oceans

The Northern Hemisphere Pink Salmon Expert Group Meeting was held on October 2–3, 2022 in Vancouver, Canada, immediately preceding the International Year of the Salmon (IYS) Synthesis Symposium. The rapid expansion of pink salmon was the theme for the meeting, and experts came together to discuss the current state of knowledge for pink salmon. Specific topics of focus included the range expansion into the Atlantic and Arctic oceans, trends in distribution and abundance, research and monitoring approaches, potential inter-specific interactions, mitigation efforts, and plans for future collaborations. The outcomes of the meeting were presented at the IYS Synthesis Symposium and are further disseminated through this NPAFC Technical Report. The Executive Summary section of this report provides a brief background, a condensed overview of each topic, and concludes with overarching takeaway messages that are intended to guide future collaborations.publishedVersio

Teaching Critical Thinking About Health Using Digital Technology in Lower Secondary Schools in Rwanda: A Qualitative Context Analysis, 2020

The objective of this context analysis was to explore conditions for teaching critical thinking about health interventions to lower secondary school students in Rwanda, including the demand for learning resources, how teaching critical thinking about health fits into the curriculum, and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) conditions for digital learning resources. The data material includes the following files: 1. Analysis curriculum framework - Curricular links to critical thinking about health 2. Analysis policy makers - information and communication technology - quotes from interviews 3. Analysis policy makers 2 - Plan for Rwanda Education Board team - quotes from interviews 4. Analysis policy makers 3 - Rwanda Education Board - resource development - quotes from interviews 5. Analysis teachers - quotes from interviews with teachers 6. Analysis students - quotes from interviews with students 7. Final context analysis of IHC in lower secondary school - relevant subjects, topics, and units. Data are freely available for downloading

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

Background: The Informed Health Choices (IHC) Key Concepts are principles for evaluating the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects. The Key Concepts provide a framework for developing learning-resources to help people use the concepts when treatment claims are made, and when they make health choices. Objective: To compare the framework provided by the IHC Key Concepts to other frameworks intended to promote critical thinking about treatment (intervention) claims and choices. Methods: We identified relevant frameworks from reviews of frameworks, searching Google Scholar, citation searches, and contact with key informants. We included frameworks intended to provide a structure for teaching or learning to think critically about the basis for claims, evidence used to support claims, or informed choices. For a framework to be included, there had to be a description of its purpose; a list of concepts, competences, or dispositions; and definitions of key terms. We made independent assessments of framework eligibility and extracted data for each included framework using standardised forms. Results: Twenty-two frameworks met our inclusion criteria. The purpose of the IHC Framework is similar to that of two frameworks for critical thinking and somewhat similar to that of a framework for evidence-based practice. Those frameworks have broader scopes than the IHC Framework. An important limitation of broad frameworks is that they do not provide an adequate basis (concepts) for deciding which claims to believe and what to do. There was at most some overlap between the concepts, competences, and dispositions in each of the 22 included frameworks and those in the IHC Framework. Conclusions: The IHC Key Concepts Framework appears to be unique. Our review has shown how it and other frameworks can be improved by taking account of the ways in which other related frameworks have been taking account of the ways in which other related frameworks have been developed, evaluated, and made useful