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。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言:我们设计了知情健康选择(IHC)中学干预,并评估了它是否提高了乌干达学生评估治疗效果声明可信度的能力。我们在随机试验的同时进行了过程评估,以确定可能影响乌干达干预措施实施、保真度和扩大规模的因素。我们还探讨了干预的潜在不利和有利影响。方法:我们采用混合方法从各种来源收集、三角测量和报告数据。我们在所有40所干预学校中至少观察了一堂课。每所学校各有一名教师在每节课后完成一份教师培训评估表和课程评估问卷。我们有目的地选择了10所学校,与学生进行10次焦点小组讨论,与家长进行1次焦点小组讨论。我们还对政策制定者(N=9)、教师(N=10)、校长(N=4)和家长(N=3)进行了关键信息提供者访谈。我们使用框架分析方法来分析数据。结果:过程评价的所有参与者都认为免疫组化干预是必要的、重要的和及时的。学生们之所以有动力去上课并学习课程内容,是因为课程讲述了他们的日常生活经历,以及他们在面对健康声明时决定该做什么或相信什么的挑战。培训工作坊给了老师们讲授课程的信心。参与的学生对所学内容和运用都有清晰的理解。这些内容提高了学生和教师对初中课程中批判性思维、沟通和解决问题能力的认识。结论:本过程评价的结果与试验的结果一致,表明干预提高了学生的批判性思维能力。IHC资源使教师能够教授这种能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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