Tropical Institute of Community Health and Development, Kisumu, Kenya.
Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Trials. 2024 Oct 30;25(1):733. doi: 10.1186/s13063-024-08577-w.
Critical thinking about health choices is essential to avoid being misled by unreliable information and to use reliable information appropriately. The aim of this prospective meta-analysis was to synthesize the results of 1-year follow-up data from three cluster-randomized trials of an intervention designed to teach lower secondary school students to think critically about health choices. Only one other randomized trial has evaluated a school-based intervention to teach adolescents to think critically about health choices. That trial compared two teaching strategies to teach statistical reasoning. It did not assess long-term learning-retention.
We conducted the trials in Kenya, Rwanda, and Uganda. The intervention included providing a 2-3-day teacher training workshop and digital resources for ten lessons. The intervention focused on nine key concepts. We did not intervene in control schools. The primary outcome was a passing score on a test (≥ 9 of 18 multiple-choice questions answered correctly). We performed random effects meta-analyses to estimate the overall intervention effects. We calculated learning retention as the test results in the intervention schools after 1 year relative to just after the intervention, adjusted for chance.
Altogether, 244 schools (11,344 students) took part in the three trials. Follow-up data was collected for 8298 students (73%). The overall odds ratio for the primary outcome after 1 year was 3.6 (95% CI: 1.9-7.1; p = 0.0001) in favor of the intervention, whereas it was 5.5 (95% CI: 3.0-10.2) just after the intervention. This corresponds to 25.6% (95% CI: 21.1-30.0%) more students in the intervention schools passing the test after 1 year versus 33.3% (95% CI: 28.7-37.8%) just after the intervention. Overall, 2273 (52.6%) of 4324 students in intervention schools had a passing score after 1 year compared to 3397 (58.1%) of 5846 students just after the intervention, indicating 88.3% learning retention.
One year after the intervention, we still found a positive effect on the ability of students to think critically about health choices, but 5.5% fewer students in the intervention schools had a passing score. The certainty of the evidence was also lower due to 27% of students being lost to follow-up.
The protocol for this prospective meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO May 31, 2022, ID 336580. The three randomized trials were registered in the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry February 15, 2022, PACTR202203880375077; April 5, 2022, PACTR20220488391731; and April 14, 2022, PACTR202204861458660.
批判性地思考健康选择对于避免被不可靠信息误导以及正确使用可靠信息至关重要。本前瞻性荟萃分析的目的是综合三项随机对照试验的 1 年随访数据,这些试验旨在教授中学生批判性地思考健康选择。只有一项其他随机试验评估了一项基于学校的干预措施,以教导青少年批判性地思考健康选择。该试验比较了两种教授统计推理的教学策略。它没有评估长期学习保留情况。
我们在肯尼亚、卢旺达和乌干达进行了这些试验。该干预措施包括提供为期 2-3 天的教师培训研讨会和十节课的数字资源。干预措施侧重于九个关键概念。我们没有在对照组学校进行干预。主要结局是通过测试(答对 18 道多项选择题中的 9 道及以上)的得分。我们进行了随机效应荟萃分析,以估计整体干预效果。我们将学习保留率计算为干预学校在 1 年后的测试结果相对于干预后的结果,通过机会进行了调整。
共有 244 所学校(11344 名学生)参加了这三项试验。对 8298 名学生(73%)进行了随访数据收集。1 年后主要结局的总优势比为 3.6(95%CI:1.9-7.1;p=0.0001),有利于干预组,而干预后为 5.5(95%CI:3.0-10.2)。这相当于干预组 1 年后通过测试的学生比例比干预后增加了 25.6%(95%CI:21.1-30.0%),而干预后增加了 33.3%(95%CI:28.7-37.8%)。总体而言,与干预后 1 年有 3397 名(58.1%)学生通过测试相比,干预学校有 2273 名(52.6%)学生通过测试,表明学习保留率为 88.3%。
干预 1 年后,我们仍然发现学生批判性思考健康选择的能力有积极影响,但通过测试的学生比例下降了 5.5%。由于 27%的学生失访,证据的确定性也有所降低。
本前瞻性荟萃分析的方案于 2022 年 5 月 31 日在 PROSPERO 上注册,ID 336580。这三项随机试验于 2022 年 2 月 15 日在泛非临床试验注册中心注册,PACTR202203880375077;2022 年 4 月 5 日,PACTR20220488391731;和 2022 年 4 月 14 日,PACTR202204861458660。