Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice (CREBP), Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, 14 University Drive, Robina, QLD, 4229, Australia.
James Lind Initiative, Oxford, UK.
Syst Rev. 2018 May 2;7(1):68. doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0719-4.
Health information is readily accessible but is of variable quality. General knowledge about how to assess whether claims about health interventions are trustworthy is not common, so people's health decisions can be ill-informed, unnecessarily costly and even unsafe. This review aims to identify and evaluate studies of educational interventions designed to improve people's understanding of key concepts for evaluating claims about the effects of health interventions.
METHODS/DESIGN: We searched multiple electronic databases and sources of grey literature. Inclusion criteria included all study types that included a comparison, any participants (except health professionals or health professional students) and educational interventions aimed at improving people's understanding of one or more of the key concepts considered necessary for assessing health intervention claims. Knowledge and/or understanding of concepts or skills relevant to evaluating health information were our primary outcome measures. Secondary outcomes included behaviour, confidence, attitude and satisfaction with the educational interventions. Two authors independently screened search results, assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. Results were summarised using descriptive synthesis.
Among 24 eligible studies, 14 were randomised trials and 10 used other study designs. There was heterogeneity across study participants, settings and educational intervention type, content and delivery. The risk of bias was high in at least one domain for all randomised studies. Most studies measured outcomes immediately after the educational intervention, with few measuring later. In most of the comparisons, measures of knowledge and skills were better among those who had received educational interventions than among controls, and some of these differences were statistically significant. The effects on secondary outcomes were inconsistent.
Educational interventions to improve people's understanding of key concepts for evaluating health intervention claims can improve people's knowledge and skills, at least in the short term. Effects on confidence, attitude and behaviour are uncertain. Many of the studies were at moderate or greater risk of bias. Improvements in study quality, consistency of outcome measures and measures of longer-term effects are needed to improve confidence in estimates of the effects of educational interventions to improve people's understanding of key concepts for evaluating health intervention claims.
PROSPERO CRD42016033103.
健康信息随手可得，但质量参差不齐。人们普遍不了解如何评估健康干预措施的说法是否可信，因此人们的健康决策可能缺乏信息、代价高昂甚至不安全。本综述旨在识别和评估旨在提高人们理解评估健康干预措施效果的说法的关键概念的教育干预措施的研究。
方法/设计：我们搜索了多个电子数据库和灰色文献来源。纳入标准包括所有包含比较的研究类型、任何参与者（除了卫生专业人员或卫生专业学生）以及旨在提高人们对评估健康干预措施说法所需的一个或多个关键概念的理解的教育干预措施。评估健康信息相关概念或技能的知识和/或理解是我们的主要结局指标。次要结局指标包括行为、对教育干预的信心、态度和满意度。两位作者独立筛选搜索结果、评估研究的纳入标准和偏倚风险以及提取数据。使用描述性综合来总结结果。
在 24 项符合条件的研究中，有 14 项是随机试验，10 项采用了其他研究设计。研究参与者、环境和教育干预类型、内容和交付方式存在异质性。所有随机研究至少在一个领域存在高偏倚风险。大多数研究在教育干预后立即测量结局，很少有研究测量后期结局。在大多数比较中，接受教育干预的人的知识和技能测量结果优于对照组，其中一些差异具有统计学意义。对次要结局的影响不一致。
提高人们对评估健康干预措施的说法的关键概念的理解的教育干预措施可以至少在短期内提高人们的知识和技能。对信心、态度和行为的影响不确定。许多研究存在中等到高度偏倚风险。需要提高研究质量、结果测量的一致性以及对教育干预提高人们对评估健康干预措施的说法的关键概念的理解的长期效果的测量，以提高对教育干预效果的估计的信心。
PROSPERO CRD42016033103。
