Cusack Leila, Del Mar Chris B, Chalmers Iain, Hoffmann Tammy C
Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice (CREBP), Bond University, Robina, QLD, 4229, Australia.
James Lind Initiative, Oxford, UK.
Syst Rev. 2016 Feb 25;5:37. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0213-9.
Health information has become readily accessible through mass media, and people are playing a more active and autonomous role in their health. Much of the health information that was previously only available to health professionals is now directly accessible to the public. Consequently, people often navigate vast amounts of health information on their own, typically with little knowledge about how to evaluate it or the need to do so. Health information remains essentially unregulated, and widespread problems and concerns with the quality of health information have been noted. In addition to the variable quality of health information, inconsistent and/or inappropriate use of related terminology (e.g. 'evidence-based' and 'clinically proven') can be confusing to the public, who are ill-prepared to critically examine claims. The general public are not trained in the fundamentals of health research and do not typically possess the knowledge and skills to evaluate the accuracy and completeness of information about health interventions. Without this, the public are vulnerable to acting on inaccurate or incomplete health information and making ill-informed health decisions. With this review, we intend to identify and assess educational interventions which have been designed to improve people's ability to understand key concepts relevant to evaluating claims about the effects of health interventions.
METHODS/DESIGN: This systematic review of the literature will use a search strategy that has been developed in conjunction with a Health Sciences Librarian who has expertise in systematic review searching to identify relevant studies. Databases to be searched include the following: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and ERIC. Attempts to identify unpublished studies and ongoing trials will also be made. Two review authors will independently screen search results and assess studies for eligibility. Studies which aim to improve participants' understanding of the key concepts relevant to evaluating the effects (or the interpretation of results) of health interventions will be included. Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before and after studies, controlled studies with only post-test measures, and interrupted time series studies will be eligible for inclusion. We will contact study authors to clarify any missing details/data. Due to the nature of the systematic review question and the expectation of heterogeneity in study design, interventions, and outcomes, we intend to take a narrative approach to data synthesis.
PROSPERO CRD42016033103.
通过大众媒体，健康信息已变得易于获取，人们在自身健康方面正发挥着更积极主动的作用。许多以前仅健康专业人员可获取的健康信息现在公众也能直接获取。因此，人们常常自行浏览大量的健康信息，而通常对如何评估这些信息或是否需要评估知之甚少。健康信息基本上仍未得到规范，人们已注意到健康信息质量方面存在广泛的问题和担忧。除了健康信息质量参差不齐外，相关术语（如“循证”和“临床验证”）的不一致和/或不当使用可能会让公众感到困惑，因为公众没有做好批判性审视各种说法的准备。普通公众没有接受过健康研究基础知识的培训，通常也不具备评估健康干预措施信息的准确性和完整性所需的知识和技能。没有这些，公众就容易依据不准确或不完整的健康信息行事，并做出不明智的健康决策。通过本综述，我们旨在识别和评估旨在提高人们理解与评估健康干预措施效果相关关键概念能力的教育干预措施。
方法/设计：本系统文献综述将采用与一位在系统综述检索方面具有专业知识的健康科学图书馆员共同制定的检索策略来识别相关研究。要检索的数据库包括以下这些：Cochrane对照试验中心注册库、医学索引数据库、荷兰医学文摘数据库、护理学与健康领域数据库以及教育资源信息中心。还将尝试识别未发表的研究和正在进行的试验。两位综述作者将独立筛选检索结果并评估研究的 eligibility。旨在提高参与者对与评估健康干预措施效果（或结果解读）相关关键概念理解的研究将被纳入。随机试验、非随机试验、前后对照研究、仅进行后测的对照研究以及中断时间序列研究均符合纳入条件。我们将联系研究作者以澄清任何缺失的细节/数据。由于系统综述问题的性质以及对研究设计、干预措施和结果异质性的预期，我们打算采用叙述性方法进行数据综合。
国际前瞻性系统综述注册库编号CRD42016033103 。
