scholarly journals Key Concepts for assessing claims about treatment effects and making well-informed treatment choices

F1000Research ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 1784 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew David Oxman ◽  
Iain Chalmers ◽  
Astrid Austvoll-Dahlgren ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Health Professionals ◽  
Treatment Choices ◽  
The Public ◽  
Interactive Applications ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Health Choices ◽  
Informed Treatment ◽  
Treatment Comparisons ◽  
Treatment Claims

Background:The Informed Health Choices (IHC) Key Concepts are standards for judgement, or principles for evaluating the trustworthiness of treatment claims and treatment comparisons (evidence) used to support claims, and for making treatment choices. The list of concepts provides a framework, or starting point, for teachers, journalists and other intermediaries for identifying and developing resources (such as longer explanations, examples, games and interactive applications) to help people to understand and apply the concepts. The first version of the list was published in 2015 and has been updated yearly since then. We report here the changes that have been made from when the list was first published up to the current (2018) version.Methods:We developed the IHC Key Concepts by searching the literature and checklists written for the public, journalists, and health professionals; and by considering concepts related to assessing the certainty of evidence about the effects of treatments. We have revised the Key Concepts yearly, based on feedback and suggestions; and learning from using the IHC Key Concepts, other relevant frameworks, and adaptation of the IHC Key Concepts to other types of interventions besides treatments.Results:We have made many changes since the Key Concepts were first published in 2015. There are now 44 Key Concepts compared to the original 32; the concepts have been reorganised from six to three groups; we have added higher-level concepts in each of those groups; we have added short titles; and we have made changes to many of the concepts.Conclusions:We will continue to revise the IHC Key Concepts in response to feedback. Although we and others have found them helpful since they were first published, we anticipate that there are still ways in which they can be further improved. We welcome suggestions for how to do this.

scholarly journals Key Concepts for assessing claims about treatment effects and making well-informed treatment choices

F1000Research ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 1784 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew David Oxman ◽  
Iain Chalmers ◽  
Astrid Austvoll-Dahlgren ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Health Professionals ◽  
Treatment Choices ◽  
The Public ◽  
Interactive Applications ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Health Choices ◽  
Informed Treatment ◽  
Treatment Comparisons ◽  
Treatment Claims

Background: The Informed Health Choices (IHC) Key Concepts are standards for judgement, or principles for evaluating the trustworthiness of treatment claims and treatment comparisons (evidence) used to support claims, and for making treatment choices. The list of concepts provides a framework, or starting point, for teachers, journalists and other intermediaries for identifying and developing resources (such as longer explanations, examples, games and interactive applications) to help people to understand and apply the concepts. The first version of the list was published in 2015 and has been updated yearly since then. We report here the changes that have been made from when the list was first published up to the current (2018) version.Methods: We developed the IHC Key Concepts by searching the literature and checklists written for the public, journalists, and health professionals; and by considering concepts related to assessing the certainty of evidence about the effects of treatments. We have revised the Key Concepts yearly, based on feedback and suggestions; and learning from using the IHC Key Concepts, other relevant frameworks, and adaptation of the IHC Key Concepts to other types of interventions besides treatments.Results: We have made many changes since the Key Concepts were first published in 2015. There are now 44 Key Concepts compared to the original 32; the concepts have been reorganised from six to three groups; we have added higher-level concepts in each of those groups; we have added short titles; and we have made changes to many of the concepts.Conclusions: The IHC Key Concepts have proven useful in designing learning resources, evaluating them, and organising them. We will continue to revise the IHC Key Concepts in response to feedback. We welcome suggestions for how to do this.

scholarly journals Key Concepts for Informed Health Choices: a framework for helping people learn how to assess treatment claims and make informed choices

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iain Chalmers ◽  
Andrew D Oxman ◽  
Astrid Austvoll-Dahlgren ◽  
Selena Ryan-Vig ◽  
Sarah Pannell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Reading Skills ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Primary School Children ◽  
Poor Reading ◽  
The Public ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Health Choices ◽  
Treatment Claims

Many claims about the effects of treatments, though well intentioned, are wrong. Indeed, they are sometimes deliberately misleading to serve interests other than the well-being of patients and the public. People need to know how to spot unreliable treatment claims so that they can protect themselves and others from harm. The ability to assess the trustworthiness of treatment claims is often lacking. Acquiring this ability depends on being familiar with, and correctly applying, some key concepts, for example, that’ association is not the same as causation.’ The Informed Health Choices (IHC) Project has identified 36 such concepts and shown that people can be taught to use them in decision making. A randomised trial in Uganda, for example, showed that primary school children with poor reading skills could be taught to apply 12 of the IHC Key Concepts. The list of IHC Key Concepts has proven to be effective in providing a framework for developing and evaluating IHC resources to help children to think critically about treatment claims. The list also provides a framework for retrieving, coding and organising other teaching and learning materials for learners of any age. It should help teachers, researchers, clinicians, and patients to structure critical thinking about the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects.

scholarly journals Key Concept: A Turn Towards Academobilities

eTopia ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha Brown
Keyword(s):  
Power Structures ◽  
The Public ◽  
Mobility Studies ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Do So ◽  
Changing Society

This paper introduces the key concept ‘academobilities’ as an addition to the growing collection of keywords of mobility studies. Situating academobilities within
the tradition of keywords will allow scholars across disciplines to refer to it as a
tool that can be used in their own research. Academobilities is a two-fold concept. First, it calls into question the culture surrounding academia by examining the specific ways information is transported and communicated to the public, critically examining power structures, inclusions, and exclusions. The second way in which academobilities can be employed is to examine the interconnected relationship between the academy and mobility; academia is dependent upon mobility. This paper introduces academobilities as a key concept that scholars can adopt and apply
in unique ways that move beyond this two-fold understanding. Scholars across disciplines can certainly add fruitful theoretical underpinnings to academobilities, andto do so is encouraged. Understandings of key concepts change and fluctuate over
time (Williams 1976) to address our ever-changing society. The goal of writing this paper is to identify a starting point from which scholars of all disciplines can leap. 

scholarly journals Development of mass media resources to improve the ability of parents of primary school children in Uganda to assess the trustworthiness of claims about the effects of treatments: a human-centred design approach

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Semakula ◽  
Allen Nsangi ◽  
Matt Oxman ◽  
Sarah Ellen Rosenbaum ◽  
Andrew David Oxman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mass Media ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Design Approach ◽  
Primary School Children ◽  
Final Version ◽  
The Public ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Health Choices ◽  
Human Centred Design

Abstract Background Claims about what we need to do to improve our health are everywhere. Most interventions simply tell people what to do, and do not empower them to critically assess health information. Our objective was to design mass media resources to enable the public to critically appraise the trustworthiness of claims about the benefits and harms of treatments and make informed health choices. Methods Research was conducted between 2013 and 2016 across multiple iterative phases. Participants included researchers, journalists, parents, other members of the public. First, we developed a list of 32 key concepts that people need to understand to be able to assess the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects. Next, we used a human-centred design approach, to generate ideas for resources for teaching the key concepts, and developed and user-tested prototypes through qualitative interviews. We addressed identified problems and repeated this process until we had a product that was deemed relevant and desirable by our target audience, and feasible to implement. Results We generated over 160 ideas, mostly radio-based. After prototyping some of these, we found that a podcast produced collaboratively by health researchers and journalists was the most promising approach. We developed eight episodes of the Informed Health Choices podcast, a song on critical thinking about treatments and a reminder checklist. Early versions of the podcast were reportedly too long, boring and confusing. We shortened the episodes, included one key concept per episode, and changed to story-telling with skits. The final version of the podcast was found to be useful, understandable, credible and desirable. Conclusion We found many problems with various prototypes of mass media resources. Using a human-centred design approach, we overcame those problems. We have developed a guide to help others prepare similar podcasts.

scholarly journals Comparison of the Informed Health Choices Key Concepts Framework to other frameworks relevant to teaching and learning how to think critically about health claims and choices: a systematic review

F1000Research ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew D. Oxman ◽  
Laura Martínez García
Keyword(s):  
Critical Thinking ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Health Claims ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Treatment Intervention ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Health Choices ◽  
Key Terms ◽  
Treatment Claims

Background: The Informed Health Choices (IHC) Key Concepts are principles for evaluating the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects. The Key Concepts provide a framework for developing learning-resources to help people use the concepts when treatment claims are made, and when they make health choices. Objective: To compare the framework provided by the IHC Key Concepts to other frameworks intended to promote critical thinking about treatment (intervention) claims and choices. Methods: We identified relevant frameworks from reviews of frameworks, searching Google Scholar, citation searches, and contact with key informants. We included frameworks intended to provide a structure for teaching or learning to think critically about the basis for claims, evidence used to support claims, or informed choices. For a framework to be included, there had to be a description of its purpose; a list of concepts, competences, or dispositions; and definitions of key terms. We made independent assessments of framework eligibility and extracted data for each included framework using standardised forms. Results: Twenty-two frameworks met our inclusion criteria. The purpose of the IHC Framework is similar to that of two frameworks for critical thinking and somewhat similar to that of a framework for evidence-based practice. Those frameworks have broader scopes than the IHC Framework. An important limitation of broad frameworks is that they do not provide an adequate basis (concepts) for deciding which claims to believe and what to do. There was at most some overlap between the concepts, competences, and dispositions in each of the 22 included frameworks and those in the IHC Framework. Conclusions: The IHC Key Concepts Framework appears to be unique.  Our review has shown how it and other frameworks can be improved by taking account of the ways in which other related frameworks have been developed, evaluated, and made useful.

Men's perception and understanding of male-factor infertility in the UK

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (9) ◽  
pp. S8-S16
Author(s):  
Eleanor L Stevenson ◽  
Cheng Ching-Yu ◽  
Chang Chia-Hao ◽  
Kevin R McEleny
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Emotional Support ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Male Fertility ◽  
Public Knowledge ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Male Factor Infertility ◽  
Male Factor ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Uk

Male-factor infertility is a common but stigmatised issue, and men often do not receive the emotional support and the information they need. This study sought to understand awareness of male fertility issues compared to female fertility among the UK general male public, and also what were perceived as being the optimum methods for providing support for affected men, emotionally and through information. Men feel that male infertility is not discussed by the public as much as female infertility. Lifestyle issues that affect male fertility are not well understood, and men affected by infertility desire more support, including online, from health professionals and through peer support. Health professionals, including those in public health, could offer evidence-based programmes to reduce stigma and increase public knowledge about infertility, as well as offer emotional support to men with infertility problems.

scholarly journals Cornel West and Marxist Humanism

2021 ◽  
pp. 089692052098831
Author(s):  
Christian Fuchs
Keyword(s):  
Marxist Theory ◽  
Black Liberation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Black Liberation Theology ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Global Problems ◽  
Filter Bubbles ◽  
Marxist Humanism ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
Cornel West

Humanity has experienced an explosion of anti-humanism in the form of authoritarian capitalism, postmodern filter bubbles, and global problems. Marxist/Socialist Humanism is the proper answer to the deep crisis of humanity. In this context, this article asks ‘How can Cornel West’s works inform a contemporary Marxist humanist theory of society?’ Taking West’s works as a starting point, what are the key elements of a Marxist humanist theory of society? Cornel West is one of the leading critical intellectuals today. His work has fused anti-racist theory, Black Liberation Theology, Marxist theory, pragmatism, and existentialism. This article especially focuses on West’s understanding of humanism and culture. It shows how his works and praxis can inform the reinvigoration of Marxist Humanism in the age of authoritarian capitalism as a socialist response. West’s thought can and should also inform the analysis of alienation, exploitation, domination, culture, the public sphere, the critique of ideology, and popular culture.

scholarly journals Regulating health professional scopes of practice: comparing institutional arrangements and approaches in the US, Canada, Australia and the UK

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen Leslie ◽  
Jean Moore ◽  
Chris Robertson ◽  
Douglas Bilton ◽  
Kristine Hirschkorn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Professional ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Swot Analysis ◽  
Institutional Arrangements ◽  
Scope Of Practice ◽  
Comparative Case Study ◽  
Specific Reference ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Uk

Abstract Background Fundamentally, the goal of health professional regulatory regimes is to ensure the highest quality of care to the public. Part of that task is to control what health professionals do, or their scope of practice. Ideally, this involves the application of evidence-based professional standards of practice to the tasks for which health professional have received training. There are different jurisdictional approaches to achieving these goals. Methods Using a comparative case study approach and similar systems policy analysis design, we present and discuss four different regulatory approaches from the US, Canada, Australia and the UK. For each case, we highlight the jurisdictional differences in how these countries regulate health professional scopes of practice in the interest of the public. Our comparative Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) analysis is based on archival research carried out by the authors wherein we describe the evolution of the institutional arrangements for form of regulatory approach, with specific reference to scope of practice. Results/conclusions Our comparative examination finds that the different regulatory approaches in these countries have emerged in response to similar challenges. In some cases, ‘tasks’ or ‘activities’ are the basis of regulation, whereas in other contexts protected ‘titles’ are regulated, and in some cases both. From our results and the jurisdiction-specific SWOT analyses, we have conceptualized a synthesized table of leading practices related to regulating scopes of practice mapped to specific regulatory principles. We discuss the implications for how these different approaches achieve positive outcomes for the public, but also for health professionals and the system more broadly in terms of workforce optimization.

scholarly journals Examining Australian public perceptions and behaviors towards a future COVID-19 vaccine

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Holly Seale ◽  
Anita E. Heywood ◽  
Julie Leask ◽  
Meru Sheel ◽  
David N. Durrheim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Online Survey ◽  
Private Health Insurance ◽  
Public Perceptions ◽  
Multivariable Logistic Regression Model ◽  
Careful Planning ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Public ◽  
Individual Perceptions ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Early Indication

Abstract Background As immunisation program launches have previously demonstrated, it is essential that careful planning occurs now to ensure the readiness of the public for a COVID-19 vaccine. As part of that process, this study aimed to understand the public perceptions regarding a future COVID-19 vaccine in Australia. Methods A national cross-sectional online survey of 1420 Australian adults (18 years and older) was undertaken between 18 and 24 March 2020. The statistical analysis of the data included univariate and multivariable logistic regression model analysis. Results Respondents generally held positive views towards vaccination. Eighty percent (n = 1143) agreed with the statement that getting myself vaccinated for COVID-19 would be a good way to protect myself against infection. Females (n = 614, 83%) were more likely to agree with the statement than males (n = 529, 78%) (aOR = 1.4 (95% CI: 1.1–1.8); P = 0.03), while 91% of those aged 70 years and above agreed compared to 76% of 18–29-year-olds (aOR = 2.3 (95% CI:1.2–4.1); P = 0.008). Agreement was also higher for those with a self-reported chronic disease (aOR = 1.4 (95% CI: 1.1–2.0); P = 0.04) and among those who held private health insurance (aOR = 1.7 (95% CI: 1.3–2.3); P < 0.001). Beyond individual perceptions, 78% stated that their decision to vaccinate would be supported by family and friends. Conclusion This study presents an early indication of public perceptions towards a future COVID-19 vaccine and represents a starting point for mapping vaccine perceptions. To support an effective launch of these new vaccines, governments need to use this time to understand the communities concerns and to identify the strategies that will support engagement.

Realising immigration as a human right: public justification and cosmopolitan solidarity

2021 ◽  
pp. 136843102098713
Author(s):  
David Martínez ◽  
Alexander Elliott
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
Public Justification ◽  
Human Right ◽  
National State ◽  
The Public ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Legal Structures ◽  
The Right ◽  
Normative Justification

According to David Miller, immigration is not a human right. Conversely, Kieran Oberman makes a case for immigration as a human right. We agree with the latter view, but we show that its starting point is mistaken. Indeed, both Miller and Oberman discuss the right to immigration within the liberal paradigm: it is a right or not depending on the correct balance between the interests of the citizens of a given national state and the interests of the immigrants. Instead, we claim that public justification can underpin immigration as a human right. That said, the public justification of the right to immigration has several counterarguments to rebut. Before we deal with that issue, relying on Jürgen Habermas’s social theory, we examine the legal structures that could support the right to immigration in practice. To be sure, this does not provide the normative justification needed, instead it shows the framework that allows the institutional realization of this right. Then, through a combination of civic and cosmopolitan forms of solidarity, the article discusses the formation of a public sphere, which could provide the justification of the right to immigration.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document