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}
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.
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.