Ronald Ssenyonga, Simon Lewin, Esther Nakyejwe, Faith Chelagat, Michael Mugisha, Matt Oxman, Allen Nsangi, Daniel Semakula, Sarah E Rosenbaum, Jenny Moberg, Andrew D Oxman, Heather Munthe-Kaas, Christine Holst, Margaret Kaseje, Laetitia Nyirazinyoye, Nelson Sewankambo
{"title":"乌干达使用知情健康选择干预的健康批判性思维教学过程评价:一项混合方法研究。","authors":"Ronald Ssenyonga, Simon Lewin, Esther Nakyejwe, Faith Chelagat, Michael Mugisha, Matt Oxman, Allen Nsangi, Daniel Semakula, Sarah E Rosenbaum, Jenny Moberg, Andrew D Oxman, Heather Munthe-Kaas, Christine Holst, Margaret Kaseje, Laetitia Nyirazinyoye, Nelson Sewankambo","doi":"10.9745/GHSP-D-23-00484","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>We designed the Informed Health Choices (IHC) secondary school intervention and evaluated whether it improves students' ability to assess the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects in Uganda. We conducted a process evaluation alongside a randomized trial to identify factors that may affect the implementation, fidelity, and scaling up of the intervention in Uganda. We also explored the potential adverse and beneficial effects of the intervention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used mixed methods to collect, triangulate, and report data from a variety of sources. We observed at least 1 lesson in all 40 intervention schools. One teacher from each of these schools completed a teacher training evaluation form and lesson evaluation questionnaires after each lesson. We purposively selected 10 schools where we conducted a total of 10 focus group discussions with students and 1 with parents. We also conducted key informant interviews with policymakers (N=9), teachers (N=10), head teachers (N=4), and parents (N=3). We used a framework analysis approach to analyze the data.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>All participants in the process evaluation felt that the IHC intervention was needed, important, and timely. Students were motivated to attend class and learn the content because it spoke to their daily life experiences and their own challenges to decide what to do or believe when faced with health claims. The training workshop gave teachers the confidence to teach the lessons. The participating students demonstrated a clear understanding of the content and use of what was learned. The content improved both students' and teachers' appreciation of the critical thinking, communication, and problem-solving competencies in the lower secondary school curriculum.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings of this process evaluation are consistent with the findings of the trial, which showed that the intervention improved the students' critical thinking skills. The IHC resources enabled teachers to teach this competency.</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/PMC11666090/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Process Evaluation of Teaching Critical Thinking About Health Using the Informed Health Choices Intervention in Uganda: A Mixed Methods Study.\",\"authors\":\"Ronald Ssenyonga, Simon Lewin, Esther Nakyejwe, Faith Chelagat, Michael Mugisha, Matt Oxman, Allen Nsangi, Daniel Semakula, Sarah E Rosenbaum, Jenny Moberg, Andrew D Oxman, Heather Munthe-Kaas, Christine Holst, Margaret Kaseje, Laetitia Nyirazinyoye, Nelson Sewankambo\",\"doi\":\"10.9745/GHSP-D-23-00484\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>We designed the Informed Health Choices (IHC) secondary school intervention and evaluated whether it improves students' ability to assess the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects in Uganda. We conducted a process evaluation alongside a randomized trial to identify factors that may affect the implementation, fidelity, and scaling up of the intervention in Uganda. We also explored the potential adverse and beneficial effects of the intervention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used mixed methods to collect, triangulate, and report data from a variety of sources. We observed at least 1 lesson in all 40 intervention schools. One teacher from each of these schools completed a teacher training evaluation form and lesson evaluation questionnaires after each lesson. We purposively selected 10 schools where we conducted a total of 10 focus group discussions with students and 1 with parents. We also conducted key informant interviews with policymakers (N=9), teachers (N=10), head teachers (N=4), and parents (N=3). We used a framework analysis approach to analyze the data.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>All participants in the process evaluation felt that the IHC intervention was needed, important, and timely. Students were motivated to attend class and learn the content because it spoke to their daily life experiences and their own challenges to decide what to do or believe when faced with health claims. The training workshop gave teachers the confidence to teach the lessons. The participating students demonstrated a clear understanding of the content and use of what was learned. The content improved both students' and teachers' appreciation of the critical thinking, communication, and problem-solving competencies in the lower secondary school curriculum.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings of this process evaluation are consistent with the findings of the trial, which showed that the intervention improved the students' critical thinking skills. The IHC resources enabled teachers to teach this competency.</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/PMC11666090/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-23-00484\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Health: Science and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-23-00484","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}
Process Evaluation of Teaching Critical Thinking About Health Using the Informed Health Choices Intervention in Uganda: A Mixed Methods Study.
Introduction: We designed the Informed Health Choices (IHC) secondary school intervention and evaluated whether it improves students' ability to assess the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects in Uganda. We conducted a process evaluation alongside a randomized trial to identify factors that may affect the implementation, fidelity, and scaling up of the intervention in Uganda. We also explored the potential adverse and beneficial effects of the intervention.
Methods: We used mixed methods to collect, triangulate, and report data from a variety of sources. We observed at least 1 lesson in all 40 intervention schools. One teacher from each of these schools completed a teacher training evaluation form and lesson evaluation questionnaires after each lesson. We purposively selected 10 schools where we conducted a total of 10 focus group discussions with students and 1 with parents. We also conducted key informant interviews with policymakers (N=9), teachers (N=10), head teachers (N=4), and parents (N=3). We used a framework analysis approach to analyze the data.
Findings: All participants in the process evaluation felt that the IHC intervention was needed, important, and timely. Students were motivated to attend class and learn the content because it spoke to their daily life experiences and their own challenges to decide what to do or believe when faced with health claims. The training workshop gave teachers the confidence to teach the lessons. The participating students demonstrated a clear understanding of the content and use of what was learned. The content improved both students' and teachers' appreciation of the critical thinking, communication, and problem-solving competencies in the lower secondary school curriculum.
Conclusion: The findings of this process evaluation are consistent with the findings of the trial, which showed that the intervention improved the students' critical thinking skills. The IHC resources enabled teachers to teach this competency.
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.