Process Evaluation of Teaching Critical Thinking About Health Using the Informed Health Choices Intervention in Rwanda: A Mixed Methods Study.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Michael Mugisha, Andrew D Oxman, Laetitia Nyirazinyoye, Anne Marie Uwitonze, Clarisse Marie Claudine Simbi, Faith Chesire, Ronald Ssenyonga, Matt Oxman, Allen Nsangi, Daniel Semakula, Margaret Kaseje, Nelson K Sewankambo, Sarah Rosenbaum, Simon Lewin
{"title":"Process Evaluation of Teaching Critical Thinking About Health Using the Informed Health Choices Intervention in Rwanda: A Mixed Methods Study.","authors":"Michael Mugisha, Andrew D Oxman, Laetitia Nyirazinyoye, Anne Marie Uwitonze, Clarisse Marie Claudine Simbi, Faith Chesire, Ronald Ssenyonga, Matt Oxman, Allen Nsangi, Daniel Semakula, Margaret Kaseje, Nelson K Sewankambo, Sarah Rosenbaum, Simon Lewin","doi":"10.9745/GHSP-D-23-00483","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>We evaluated the Informed Health Choices secondary school intervention in a cluster randomized trial in Rwanda. The intervention was effective in helping students to think critically about health. In parallel to the trial, we conducted a process evaluation to assess factors affecting the implementation, impacts, and scale-up of the intervention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a mixed methods approach that included quantitative and qualitative methods. We collected quantitative data from teachers to evaluate the teacher training and each lesson. We conducted focus group discussions with students (n=10) and their parents/guardians (n=5). We conducted lesson observations (n=16) and key informant interviews with teachers (n=10) and school administrators (n=10) from intervention schools and policymakers (n=2). We analyzed the quantitative data using descriptive statistics. We used framework analysis and thematic content analysis to analyze the qualitative data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Teachers noted that the teacher training supported their delivery of the intervention and that they made only small adaptations to fit student, teacher, or contextual needs. Students reported obtaining important skills, including recognizing health claims, understanding the need for research, and \"thinking twice\" before deciding. Participants saw the design of the intervention, students' and teachers' motivation, and school and home support as key facilitators for the implementation and impact of the intervention. Implementation barriers identified included the content of the lessons not being included in national examinations, competing priorities, and time constraints. Participants identified several factors that could facilitate intervention scale-up, including the need for the skills taught in the lessons and compatibility of the intervention with the national curriculum.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found that it was feasible to implement the intervention in Rwandan secondary schools and that students benefited from the intervention. Scaling up the intervention will likely require addressing the barriers identified in this study.</p>","PeriodicalId":12692,"journal":{"name":"Global Health: Science and Practice","volume":"12 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11666086/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Health: Science and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-23-00483","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: We evaluated the Informed Health Choices secondary school intervention in a cluster randomized trial in Rwanda. The intervention was effective in helping students to think critically about health. In parallel to the trial, we conducted a process evaluation to assess factors affecting the implementation, impacts, and scale-up of the intervention.

Methods: We used a mixed methods approach that included quantitative and qualitative methods. We collected quantitative data from teachers to evaluate the teacher training and each lesson. We conducted focus group discussions with students (n=10) and their parents/guardians (n=5). We conducted lesson observations (n=16) and key informant interviews with teachers (n=10) and school administrators (n=10) from intervention schools and policymakers (n=2). We analyzed the quantitative data using descriptive statistics. We used framework analysis and thematic content analysis to analyze the qualitative data.

Results: Teachers noted that the teacher training supported their delivery of the intervention and that they made only small adaptations to fit student, teacher, or contextual needs. Students reported obtaining important skills, including recognizing health claims, understanding the need for research, and "thinking twice" before deciding. Participants saw the design of the intervention, students' and teachers' motivation, and school and home support as key facilitators for the implementation and impact of the intervention. Implementation barriers identified included the content of the lessons not being included in national examinations, competing priorities, and time constraints. Participants identified several factors that could facilitate intervention scale-up, including the need for the skills taught in the lessons and compatibility of the intervention with the national curriculum.

Conclusion: We found that it was feasible to implement the intervention in Rwandan secondary schools and that students benefited from the intervention. Scaling up the intervention will likely require addressing the barriers identified in this study.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Global Health: Science and Practice
Global Health: Science and Practice Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
178
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍: Global Health: Science and Practice (GHSP) is a no-fee, open-access, peer-reviewed, online journal aimed to improve health practice, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Our goal is to reach those who design, implement, manage, evaluate, and otherwise support health programs. We are especially interested in advancing knowledge on practical program implementation issues, with information on what programs entail and how they are implemented. GHSP is currently indexed in PubMed, PubMed Central, POPLINE, EBSCO, SCOPUS,. the Web of Science Emerging Sources Citation Index, and the USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC). TOPICS: Issued four times a year, GHSP will include articles on all global health topics, covering diverse programming models and a wide range of cross-cutting issues that impact and support health systems. Examples include but are not limited to: Health: Addiction and harm reduction, Child Health, Communicable and Emerging Diseases, Disaster Preparedness and Response, Environmental Health, Family Planning/Reproductive Health, HIV/AIDS, Malaria, Maternal Health, Neglected Tropical Diseases, Non-Communicable Diseases/Injuries, Nutrition, Tuberculosis, Water and Sanitation. Cross-Cutting Issues: Epidemiology, Gender, Health Communication/Healthy Behavior, Health Policy and Advocacy, Health Systems, Human Resources/Training, Knowledge Management, Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Management and Governance, mHealth/eHealth/digital health, Monitoring and Evaluation, Scale Up, Youth.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信