知情健康选择中学干预的效果:一项前瞻性荟萃分析。

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine Pub Date : 2023-09-21 DOI:10.1111/jebm.12552
Faith Chesire, Michael Mugisha, Ronald Ssenyonga, Christopher J. Rose, Allen Nsangi, Margaret Kaseje, Nelson K. Sewankambo, Matt Oxman, Sarah E. Rosenbaum, Jenny Moberg, Astrid Dahlgren, Simon Lewin, Andrew D. Oxman
{"title":"知情健康选择中学干预的效果:一项前瞻性荟萃分析。","authors":"Faith Chesire,&nbsp;Michael Mugisha,&nbsp;Ronald Ssenyonga,&nbsp;Christopher J. Rose,&nbsp;Allen Nsangi,&nbsp;Margaret Kaseje,&nbsp;Nelson K. Sewankambo,&nbsp;Matt Oxman,&nbsp;Sarah E. Rosenbaum,&nbsp;Jenny Moberg,&nbsp;Astrid Dahlgren,&nbsp;Simon Lewin,&nbsp;Andrew D. Oxman","doi":"10.1111/jebm.12552","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>The aim of this prospective meta-analysis was to synthesize the results of three cluster-randomized trials of an intervention designed to teach lower-secondary school students (age 14–16) to think critically about health choices.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted the trials in Kenya, Rwanda, and Uganda. The intervention included a 2- to 3-day teacher training workshop, digital resources, and ten 40-min lessons. The lessons focused on nine key concepts. We did not intervene in control schools. The primary outcome was a passing score on a test (≥9 of 18 multiple-choice questions answered correctly). We performed random effects meta-analyses to estimate the overall adjusted odds ratios. Secondary outcomes included effects of the intervention on teachers.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Altogether, 244 schools (11,344 students) took part in the three trials. The overall adjusted odds ratio was 5.5 (95% CI: 3.0–10.2; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001) in favor of the intervention (high certainty evidence). This corresponds to 33% (95% CI: 25–40%) more students in the intervention schools passing the test. Overall, 3397 (58%) of 5846 students in intervention schools had a passing score. The overall adjusted odds ratio for teachers was 13.7(95% CI: 4.6–40.4; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001), corresponding to 32% (95% CI: 6%–57%) more teachers in the intervention schools passing the test (moderate certainty evidence). Overall, 118 (97%) of 122 teachers in intervention schools had a passing score.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The intervention led to a large improvement in the ability of students and teachers to think critically about health choices, but 42% of students in the intervention schools did not achieve a passing score.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16090,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12552","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of the Informed Health Choices secondary school intervention: A prospective meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Faith Chesire,&nbsp;Michael Mugisha,&nbsp;Ronald Ssenyonga,&nbsp;Christopher J. Rose,&nbsp;Allen Nsangi,&nbsp;Margaret Kaseje,&nbsp;Nelson K. Sewankambo,&nbsp;Matt Oxman,&nbsp;Sarah E. Rosenbaum,&nbsp;Jenny Moberg,&nbsp;Astrid Dahlgren,&nbsp;Simon Lewin,&nbsp;Andrew D. Oxman\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jebm.12552\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>The aim of this prospective meta-analysis was to synthesize the results of three cluster-randomized trials of an intervention designed to teach lower-secondary school students (age 14–16) to think critically about health choices.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We conducted the trials in Kenya, Rwanda, and Uganda. The intervention included a 2- to 3-day teacher training workshop, digital resources, and ten 40-min lessons. The lessons focused on nine key concepts. We did not intervene in control schools. The primary outcome was a passing score on a test (≥9 of 18 multiple-choice questions answered correctly). We performed random effects meta-analyses to estimate the overall adjusted odds ratios. Secondary outcomes included effects of the intervention on teachers.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Altogether, 244 schools (11,344 students) took part in the three trials. The overall adjusted odds ratio was 5.5 (95% CI: 3.0–10.2; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001) in favor of the intervention (high certainty evidence). This corresponds to 33% (95% CI: 25–40%) more students in the intervention schools passing the test. Overall, 3397 (58%) of 5846 students in intervention schools had a passing score. The overall adjusted odds ratio for teachers was 13.7(95% CI: 4.6–40.4; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001), corresponding to 32% (95% CI: 6%–57%) more teachers in the intervention schools passing the test (moderate certainty evidence). Overall, 118 (97%) of 122 teachers in intervention schools had a passing score.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>The intervention led to a large improvement in the ability of students and teachers to think critically about health choices, but 42% of students in the intervention schools did not achieve a passing score.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16090,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12552\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jebm.12552\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jebm.12552","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:这项前瞻性荟萃分析的目的是综合三项干预措施的集群随机试验的结果,该干预措施旨在教会初中生(14-16岁)批判性地思考健康选择。方法:我们在肯尼亚、卢旺达和乌干达进行了试验。干预措施包括为期2至3天的教师培训研讨会、数字资源和10节40分钟的课程。课程侧重于九个关键概念。我们没有干预控制学校。主要结果是考试成绩合格(18道选择题中有9道答对)。我们进行了随机效应荟萃分析,以估计总体调整后的比值比。次要结果包括干预对教师的影响。结果:共有244所学校(11344名学生)参加了这三项试验。总体调整后的优势比为5.5(95%置信区间:3.0-10.2;p结论:干预措施大大提高了学生和教师批判性思考健康选择的能力,但干预学校42%的学生没有达到及格分数。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Effects of the Informed Health Choices secondary school intervention: A prospective meta-analysis

Aim

The aim of this prospective meta-analysis was to synthesize the results of three cluster-randomized trials of an intervention designed to teach lower-secondary school students (age 14–16) to think critically about health choices.

Methods

We conducted the trials in Kenya, Rwanda, and Uganda. The intervention included a 2- to 3-day teacher training workshop, digital resources, and ten 40-min lessons. The lessons focused on nine key concepts. We did not intervene in control schools. The primary outcome was a passing score on a test (≥9 of 18 multiple-choice questions answered correctly). We performed random effects meta-analyses to estimate the overall adjusted odds ratios. Secondary outcomes included effects of the intervention on teachers.

Results

Altogether, 244 schools (11,344 students) took part in the three trials. The overall adjusted odds ratio was 5.5 (95% CI: 3.0–10.2; p < 0.0001) in favor of the intervention (high certainty evidence). This corresponds to 33% (95% CI: 25–40%) more students in the intervention schools passing the test. Overall, 3397 (58%) of 5846 students in intervention schools had a passing score. The overall adjusted odds ratio for teachers was 13.7(95% CI: 4.6–40.4; p < 0.0001), corresponding to 32% (95% CI: 6%–57%) more teachers in the intervention schools passing the test (moderate certainty evidence). Overall, 118 (97%) of 122 teachers in intervention schools had a passing score.

Conclusions

The intervention led to a large improvement in the ability of students and teachers to think critically about health choices, but 42% of students in the intervention schools did not achieve a passing score.

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
Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine
Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
11.20
自引率
1.40%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine (EMB) is an esteemed international healthcare and medical decision-making journal, dedicated to publishing groundbreaking research outcomes in evidence-based decision-making, research, practice, and education. Serving as the official English-language journal of the Cochrane China Centre and West China Hospital of Sichuan University, we eagerly welcome editorials, commentaries, and systematic reviews encompassing various topics such as clinical trials, policy, drug and patient safety, education, and knowledge translation.
期刊最新文献
Evaluation and management of knee osteoarthritis. Issue Information Diagnosis and management of inflammatory bowel disease The Guidelines for use and promotion of low sodium salt in China The ethics of some placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials
×
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
现在去查看 取消
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1