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.

No abstract

Summary Background Health worker compliance with clinical guidelines is enhanced by digital clinical decision support at the point of care. The Palestinian public health system is implementing a digital maternal and child health eRegistry with clinical decision support. We aimed to compare the quality of antenatal care between clinics using the eRegistry and those using paper-based records. Methods The eRegQual cluster-randomised controlled trial was done in primary health-care clinics offering routine antenatal care in the West Bank, Palestine. The intervention was the eRegistry with clinical decision support for antenatal care, implemented in District Health Information Systems 2 (DHIS2) Tracker software. 133 clinics forming 120 clusters were included and randomised; clusters were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the control (paper-based documentation) or intervention (eRegistry with clinical decision support) groups. The primary process outcomes were appropriate screening and management of anaemia, hypertension, and diabetes during pregnancy and foetal growth monitoring. The primary health outcome at delivery was a composite of moderate or severe anaemia; severe hypertension; large-for-gestational-age baby; malpresentation and small-for-gestational-age baby undetected before delivery. Data were analysed with mixed-effects logistic regression, accounting for clustering within clinics and pregnancies as appropriate. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN18008445). Findings Between Jan 15 and Sept 15, 2017, 3219 pregnant women received care in the intervention clinics (n=60 clusters) and 3148 pregnant women received care in the control primary health-care clinics (n=59 clusters). Compared with the control group, the intervention led to higher guideline adherence for screening and management of anaemia (1535 [28·9%] of 5320 vs 2297 [44·3%] of 5182; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·88 [95% CI 1·52–2·32]), hypertension (7555 [94·7%] of 7982 vs 7314 [96·6%] of 7569; adjusted OR 1·62 [95% CI 1·29–2·05]), and gestational diabetes (1726 (39·7%) of 4348 vs 2189 (50·7%) of 4321; adjusted OR 1·45 [95% CI 1·14–1·83]) at eligible antenatal contacts. Only 599 (9·4%) of 6367 women attended the full antenatal care schedule, and better care provision did not translate to fewer adverse health outcomes in the intervention clusters (700 cases; 21·7%) compared to the control clusters (688 cases; 21·9%; adjusted OR 0·99; 95% CI 0·87–1·12). Interpretation Clinical decision support for antenatal care in the eRegistry was superior for most process outcomes but had no effect on the adverse health outcomes. The improvements in process outcomes strengthen the evidence for the WHO guideline for digital client tracking with clinical decision support in lower-middle-income settings. Digital health interventions to address gaps in atten...

Introduction: Earlier, we designed and evaluated an educational mass media intervention for improving people's ability to think more critically and to assess the trustworthiness of claims (assertions) about the benefits and harms (effects) of treatments. The overall aims of this follow-up study were to evaluate the impact of our intervention 1 year after it was administered, and to assess retention of learning and behaviour regarding claims about treatments. Methods: We randomly allocated consenting parents to listen to either the Informed Health Choices podcast (intervention) or typical public service announcements about health issues (control) over 7-10 weeks. Each intervention episode explained how the trustworthiness of treatment claims can be assessed by using relevant key concepts of evidence-informed decision-making. Participants listened to two episodes per week, delivered by research assistants. We evaluated outcomes immediately, and a year after the intervention. Primary outcomes were mean score and the proportion with a score indicating a basic ability to apply the key concepts (> 11 out of 18 correct answers) on a tool measuring people's ability to critically appraise the trustworthiness of treatment claims. Skills decay/retention was estimated by calculating the relative difference between the follow-up and initial results in the intervention group, adjusting for chance. Statistical analyses were performed using R (R Core Team, Vienna, Austria; version 3.4.3). Results: After 1 year, the mean score for parents in the intervention group was 58.9% correct answers, compared to 52.6% in the control (adjusted mean difference of 6.7% (95% CI 3.3% to 10.1%)). In the intervention group, 47.2% of 267 parents had a score indicating a basic ability to assess treatment claims compared to 39.5% of 256 parents in the control (adjusted difference of 9.8% more parents (95% CI 0.9% to 18.9%). These represent relative reductions of 29% in the mean scores and 33% in the proportion of parents with a score indicating a basic ability to assess the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects.

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the correlation of preoperative and intraoperative factors with physical function 1 year after total knee arthroplasty in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

BackgroundMedication errors are preventable events that may cause or lead to inappropriate medication use or patient harm while the medication is in the control of the healthcare professional or patient. Medication errors in hospitalised adults may cause harm, additional costs, and even death. ObjectivesTo determine the e ectiveness of interventions to reduce medication errors in adults in hospital settings. Search methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers on 16 January 2020. Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and interrupted time series (ITS) studies investigating interventions aimed at reducing medication errors in hospitalised adults, compared with usual care or other interventions. Outcome measures included adverse drug events (ADEs), potential ADEs, preventable ADEs, medication errors, mortality, morbidity, length of stay, quality of life and identified/ solved discrepancies. We included any hospital setting, such as inpatient care units, outpatient care settings, and accident and emergency departments. Data collection and analysisWe followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the E ective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. Where necessary, we extracted and reanalysed ITS study data using piecewise linear regression, corrected for autocorrelation and seasonality, where possible.

IntroductionOne in five patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) experience unchanged or worse pain and physical function 1 year after surgery. Identifying risk factors for unfavourable outcomes is necessary to develop tailored interventions to minimise risk. There is a need to review more current literature with updated methodology that addresses the limitations of earlier systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We present a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols compliant protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of predictors of chronic pain and impaired function after TKA.Methods and analysisThis review will include prospective longitudinal observational studies, or randomised trials (including cluster and crossover designs) that report arm-wise predictors of chronic postsurgical pain or impaired physical function at 3 months, 6 months or 12 months. A comprehensive literature search of studies published between 2000 and 2019 will be performed in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PEDro. Blinded assessment with consensus agreement will be applied for inclusion of studies, data extraction and assessment of bias risk (Quality in Prognosis Studies tool). The co-primary outcomes, pain and impaired function, at 12 months after TKA will be analysed separately. Estimates of association between each outcome and any preoperative or intraoperative factor that may predict chronic pain or impaired physical function will be extracted from the included studies, where possible. For randomised studies, results will only be extracted from TKA arms (or the first period of crossover trials). Estimates of association from the primary evidence will be synthesised narratively, and quantitatively using multivariate meta-analysis to provide ‘pooled’ estimates of association. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be performed. Certainty of evidence for each predictor will be derived from the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical issues are associated with this project. The results from this review will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018079069.

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.