在卢旺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
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":"在卢旺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":"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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

简介:我们在卢旺达的一项聚类随机试验中评估了知情健康选择中学干预措施。这种干预在帮助学生批判性地思考健康问题方面是有效的。在进行试验的同时,我们进行了一项过程评估,以评估影响干预措施实施、影响和扩大规模的因素。方法:采用定量和定性相结合的方法。我们收集教师的定量数据来评估教师培训和每节课。我们与学生(n=10)和他们的父母/监护人(n=5)进行了焦点小组讨论。我们对干预学校的教师(n=10)和学校管理人员(n=10)以及政策制定者(n=2)进行了课程观察(n=16)和关键信息提供者访谈。我们使用描述性统计分析定量数据。我们采用框架分析和主题内容分析对定性数据进行分析。结果:教师注意到,教师培训支持他们的干预交付,他们只做了小的调整,以适应学生,教师,或上下文的需要。学生们报告说,他们获得了重要的技能,包括识别健康声明、理解研究的必要性,以及在做决定之前“三思而后行”。参与者认为干预措施的设计、学生和教师的动机以及学校和家庭的支持是实施干预措施和产生影响的关键促进因素。确定的实施障碍包括课程内容未列入国家考试、优先事项相互竞争以及时间限制。与会者确定了可促进扩大干预措施的若干因素,包括需要在课程中教授技能以及干预措施与国家课程的兼容性。结论:我们发现在卢旺达中学实施干预是可行的,学生从干预中受益。扩大干预可能需要解决本研究中确定的障碍。
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 Rwanda: A Mixed Methods Study.

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
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