BackgroundWe developed the informed health choices (IHC) primary school resources to teach children how to assess the trustworthiness of claims about the effects of treatments. We evaluated these resources in a randomised trial in Uganda. This paper describes the process evaluation that we conducted alongside this trial.ObjectivesTo identify factors affecting the implementation, impact and scaling up of the intervention; and potential adverse and beneficial effects of the intervention.MethodsAll 85 teachers in the 60 schools in the intervention arm of the trial completed a questionnaire after each lesson and at the end of the term. We conducted structured classroom observations at all 60 schools. For interviews and focus groups, we purposively selected six schools. We interviewed district education officers, teachers, head teachers, children and their parents. We used a framework analysis approach to analyse the data.ResultsMost of the participants liked the IHC resources and felt that the content was important. This motivated the teachers and contributed to positive attitudes. Although some teachers started out lacking confidence, many found that the children’s enthusiasm for the lessons made them more confident. Nearly everyone interviewed thought that the children learnt something important and many thought that it improved their decision-making. The main barrier to scaling up use of the IHC resources that participants identified was the need to incorporate the lessons into the national curriculum.ConclusionThe mostly positive findings reflect the trial results, which showed large effects on the children’s and the teachers’ critical appraisal skills. The main limitations of this evaluation are that the investigators were responsible for both developing and evaluating the intervention.

Teach people to think critically about claims and comparisons using these concepts, urge Andrew D. Oxman and an alliance of 24 researchers -they will make better decisions. A child holds a sign protesting against genetically modified crops during a demonstration in Bulgaria.VASSIL DONEV/EPA/SHUTTERSTOCK 1 5 A U G U S T 2 0 1 9 | V O L 5 7 2 | N A T U R E | 3 0 3 COMMENT © 2 0 1 9 S p r i n g e r N a t u r e L i m i t e d . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d .

Background: Self-harm and suicide in children and adolescents are of serious consequence and increase during the adolescent years. Consequently, there is need for interventions that prevent such behaviour. The objective of this paper: to evaluate the effects of interventions preventing self-harm and suicide in children and adolescents in an overview of systematic reviews. Methods: We conducted a review of systematic reviews (OoO). We included reviews evaluating any preventive or therapeutic intervention. The quality of the included reviews was assessed independently, and data was extracted by two reviewers. We report the review findings descriptively. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Results: Moderate certainty evidence suggests that school-based interventions prevent suicidal ideation and attempts short term, and possibly with long term effects on suicide attempts. The effects of community-based interventions following suicide clusters and local suicide plans are uncertain, as are the benefits and harms of screening young people for suicide risk. The effects of most interventions targeting children and adolescents with known self-harm are uncertain. However, low certainty evidence suggests that dialectical behavioural therapy and developmental group therapy are equally as effective on repetition of self-harm as enhanced treatment as usual. Conclusions: Research on several recommended practices, such as local suicide plans, prevention of suicide clusters and approaches to risk assessment, is lacking. When implemented, these interventions should be closely evaluated. There also is need for more research on treatment for repeated self-harm, including long term follow-up, and in general: possible harmful effects. Policy makers and health providers should consider evidence from population-based studies and adults in preventing self-harm and suicide in children and adolescents. Also, approaches showing promise in treatment of conditions associated with self-harm and/or suicidality, such as depression and psychosis, should be considered. PROSPERO registration: CRD42019117942 08/02/19.

Background: Few studies have evaluated the ability of the general public to assess the trustworthiness of claims about the effects of healthcare. For the most part, those studies have used self-reported measures of critical health literacy. Methods: We mailed 4500 invitations to Norwegian adults. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of four online questionnaires that included multiple-choice questions that test understanding of Key Concepts people need to understand to assess healthcare claims. They also included questions about intended behaviours and self-efficacy. One of the four questionnaires was identical to one previously used in two randomised trials of educational interventions in Uganda, facilitating comparisons to Ugandan children, parents, and teachers. We adjusted the results using demographic data to reflect the population. Results: A total of 771 people responded. The adjusted proportion of Norwegian adults who answered correctly was > 50% for 17 of the 30 Key Concepts. On the other hand, less than half answered correctly for 13 concepts. The results for Norwegian adults were better than the results for Ugandan children in the intervention arm of the trial and parents, and similar to those of Ugandan teachers in the intervention arm of the trial. Based on self-report, most Norwegians are likely to find out the basis of treatment claims, but few consider it easy to assess whether claims are based on research and to assess the trustworthiness of research. Conclusions: Norwegian adults do not understand many concepts that are essential for assessing healthcare claims and making informed choices.Future interventions should be tailored to address Key Concepts for which there appears to be a lack of understanding.

Background: The Informed Health Choices (IHC) Key Concepts is a framework that provides a basis for developing educational resources and evaluating people’s ability to think critically about health actions. We developed the original Key Concepts framework by reviewing texts and checklists for the public, journalists, and health professionals and collecting structured feedback from an international advisory group. We revised the original 2015 framework yearly from 2016 to 2018 based on feedback and experience using the framework. The objectives of this paper are to describe the development of the framework since 2018 and summarise their basis. Methods: For the 2019 version, we responded to feedback on the 2018 version. For the current 2022 version, in addition to responding to feedback on the 2019 version, we reviewed the evidence base for each of the concepts. Whenever possible, we referenced systematic reviews that provide a basis for a concept. We screened all Cochrane methodology reviews and searched Epistemonikos, PubMed, and Google Scholar for methodology reviews and meta-epidemiological studies. Results: The original framework included 32 concepts in six groups. The 2019 version and the current 2022 version include 49 concepts in the same three main groups that we have used since 2016. There are now 10 subgroups or higher-level concepts. For each concept, there is an explanation including one or more examples, the basis for the concept, and implications. Over 600 references are cited that support the concepts, and over half of the references are systematic reviews. Conclusions: There is a large body of evidence that supports the IHC key concepts and we have received few suggestions for changes since 2019.