肯尼亚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
Faith Chesire, Andrew D Oxman, Margaret Kaseje, Violet Gisore, Michael Mugisha, Ronald Ssenyonga, Matt Oxman, Allen Nsangi, Daniel Semakula, Laetitia Nyirazinyoye, Nelson K Sewankambo, Heather Munthe-Kaas, Christine Holst, Sarah Rosenbaum, Simon Lewin
{"title":"肯尼亚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":"Faith Chesire, Andrew D Oxman, Margaret Kaseje, Violet Gisore, Michael Mugisha, Ronald Ssenyonga, Matt Oxman, Allen Nsangi, Daniel Semakula, Laetitia Nyirazinyoye, Nelson K Sewankambo, Heather Munthe-Kaas, Christine Holst, Sarah Rosenbaum, Simon Lewin","doi":"10.9745/GHSP-D-23-00485","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>We evaluated the Informed Health Choices secondary school intervention to help students in Kenya think critically about health choices. We conducted this process evaluation to explore if the intervention was implemented as planned, identify factors that facilitated or hindered implementation, potential benefits of the intervention, and how to scale up the intervention beyond the trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a mixed methods process evaluation nested in a cluster-randomized trial of the Informed Health Choices intervention. We analyzed quantitative data from teacher training evaluation forms completed by 39 teachers, 10 lesson evaluation forms completed by 40 teachers allocated to the intervention, and 72 structured classroom observation forms. We conducted a framework analysis of qualitative data from 14 group interviews (with 96 students, 23 teachers, and 18 parents) and 22 individual interviews (with 8 teachers, 5 school principals, 6 curriculum developers, and 3 policymakers). We assessed confidence in our findings from the qualitative analysis using a modified version of Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Lesson objectives were achieved with minimal adaptations. Factors that might have facilitated the implementation of the intervention include teacher training; perceived value of the intervention by students, teachers, and policymakers; and support from school administration. Time constraints, teachers' heavy workloads, and the lessons not being included in the curriculum or national examination are factors that might have impeded implementation. Both students and teachers demonstrated the ability to apply key concepts that were taught to health choices and other choices. However, they experienced difficulties with 2 of the lessons.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Scale-up of this intervention in Kenyan schools is feasible but may depend on adjusting the time allocated to teaching the lessons, modifying the 2 lessons that teachers and students found difficult, and including the lesson objectives and assessment in the national curriculum.</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/PMC11666096/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Process Evaluation of Teaching Critical Thinking About Health Using the Informed Health Choices Intervention in Kenya: A Mixed Methods Study.\",\"authors\":\"Faith Chesire, Andrew D Oxman, Margaret Kaseje, Violet Gisore, Michael Mugisha, Ronald Ssenyonga, Matt Oxman, Allen Nsangi, Daniel Semakula, Laetitia Nyirazinyoye, Nelson K Sewankambo, Heather Munthe-Kaas, Christine Holst, Sarah Rosenbaum, Simon Lewin\",\"doi\":\"10.9745/GHSP-D-23-00485\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>We evaluated the Informed Health Choices secondary school intervention to help students in Kenya think critically about health choices. We conducted this process evaluation to explore if the intervention was implemented as planned, identify factors that facilitated or hindered implementation, potential benefits of the intervention, and how to scale up the intervention beyond the trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a mixed methods process evaluation nested in a cluster-randomized trial of the Informed Health Choices intervention. We analyzed quantitative data from teacher training evaluation forms completed by 39 teachers, 10 lesson evaluation forms completed by 40 teachers allocated to the intervention, and 72 structured classroom observation forms. We conducted a framework analysis of qualitative data from 14 group interviews (with 96 students, 23 teachers, and 18 parents) and 22 individual interviews (with 8 teachers, 5 school principals, 6 curriculum developers, and 3 policymakers). We assessed confidence in our findings from the qualitative analysis using a modified version of Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Lesson objectives were achieved with minimal adaptations. Factors that might have facilitated the implementation of the intervention include teacher training; perceived value of the intervention by students, teachers, and policymakers; and support from school administration. Time constraints, teachers' heavy workloads, and the lessons not being included in the curriculum or national examination are factors that might have impeded implementation. Both students and teachers demonstrated the ability to apply key concepts that were taught to health choices and other choices. However, they experienced difficulties with 2 of the lessons.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Scale-up of this intervention in Kenyan schools is feasible but may depend on adjusting the time allocated to teaching the lessons, modifying the 2 lessons that teachers and students found difficult, and including the lesson objectives and assessment in the national curriculum.</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/PMC11666096/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-23-00485\",\"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-23-00485","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:我们评估了知情健康选择中学干预措施,以帮助肯尼亚学生批判性地思考健康选择。我们进行了这一过程评估,以探讨干预措施是否按计划实施,确定促进或阻碍实施的因素,干预措施的潜在益处,以及如何在试验结束后扩大干预措施。方法:这是一个混合方法的过程评估嵌套在一个集群随机试验的知情健康选择干预。我们分析了39名教师填写的教师培训评估表、40名教师填写的10份课程评估表和72份结构化课堂观察表的定量数据。我们对14个小组访谈(96名学生、23名教师和18名家长)和22个个人访谈(8名教师、5名校长、6名课程开发人员和3名政策制定者)的定性数据进行了框架分析。我们使用改进版的《质性研究综述证据置信度》来评估质性分析结果的置信度。结果:以最小的调整达到了课程目标。可能促进实施干预措施的因素包括教师培训;学生、教师和政策制定者对干预的感知价值;以及学校管理部门的支持。时间限制、教师繁重的工作量以及未被纳入课程或国家考试的课程可能是阻碍实施的因素。学生和教师都展示了将所教的关键概念应用于健康选择和其他选择的能力。然而,他们在其中两节课上遇到了困难。结论:在肯尼亚学校扩大这种干预是可行的,但可能取决于调整分配给教学课程的时间,修改教师和学生认为困难的两门课程,并将课程目标和评估纳入国家课程。
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 Kenya: A Mixed Methods Study.

Introduction: We evaluated the Informed Health Choices secondary school intervention to help students in Kenya think critically about health choices. We conducted this process evaluation to explore if the intervention was implemented as planned, identify factors that facilitated or hindered implementation, potential benefits of the intervention, and how to scale up the intervention beyond the trial.

Methods: This was a mixed methods process evaluation nested in a cluster-randomized trial of the Informed Health Choices intervention. We analyzed quantitative data from teacher training evaluation forms completed by 39 teachers, 10 lesson evaluation forms completed by 40 teachers allocated to the intervention, and 72 structured classroom observation forms. We conducted a framework analysis of qualitative data from 14 group interviews (with 96 students, 23 teachers, and 18 parents) and 22 individual interviews (with 8 teachers, 5 school principals, 6 curriculum developers, and 3 policymakers). We assessed confidence in our findings from the qualitative analysis using a modified version of Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research.

Results: Lesson objectives were achieved with minimal adaptations. Factors that might have facilitated the implementation of the intervention include teacher training; perceived value of the intervention by students, teachers, and policymakers; and support from school administration. Time constraints, teachers' heavy workloads, and the lessons not being included in the curriculum or national examination are factors that might have impeded implementation. Both students and teachers demonstrated the ability to apply key concepts that were taught to health choices and other choices. However, they experienced difficulties with 2 of the lessons.

Conclusion: Scale-up of this intervention in Kenyan schools is feasible but may depend on adjusting the time allocated to teaching the lessons, modifying the 2 lessons that teachers and students found difficult, and including the lesson objectives and assessment in the national curriculum.

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