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.

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 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 Establishing a library of resources to help people understand key concepts in assessing treatment claims—The “Critical thinking and Appraisal Resource Library” (CARL)

PLoS ONE ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (7) ◽  
pp. e0178666 ◽  
Author(s):  
John C. Castle ◽  
Iain Chalmers ◽  
Patricia Atkinson ◽  
Douglas Badenoch ◽  
Andrew D. Oxman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Thinking ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Resource Library ◽  
Treatment Claims

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 Teaching and learning how to make informed health choices: Protocol for a context analysis in Spanish primary schools

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 312
Author(s):  
Laura Martínez García ◽  
Laura Samsó Jofra ◽  
Pablo Alonso-Coello ◽  
Eukane Ansuategi ◽  
Laia Asso Mistral ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Thinking ◽  
Primary Schools ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Primary School Children ◽  
Learning Resources ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Systematic Assessment ◽  
Education And Health ◽  
Health Choices

Introduction The Informed Health Choices (IHC) project developed learning resources to teach primary school children (10 to 12-year-olds) to assess treatment claims and make informed health choices. The aim of our study is to explore the educational context for teaching and learning critical thinking about health in Spanish primary schools. Methods During the 2020-2021 school year, we will conduct 1) a systematic assessment of educational documents and resources, and 2) semi-structured interviews with key education and health stakeholders. In the systematic assessment of educational documents and resources, we will include state and autonomous communities’ curriculums, school educational projects, and commonly used textbooks and other health teaching materials. In the semi-structured interviews, we will involve education and health policy makers, developers of learning resources, developers of health promotion and educational interventions, head teachers, teachers, families, and paediatric primary care providers. We will design and pilot a data extraction form and a semi-structured interview guide to collect the data. We will perform a quantitative and a qualitative analysis of the data to explore how critical thinking about health is being taught and learned in Spanish primary schools. Conclusion We will identify opportunities for and barriers to teaching and learning critical thinking about health in Spanish primary schools. We will formulate recommendations—for both practice and research purposes—on how to use, adapt (if needed), and implement the IHC resources in this context.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Online Resources in Developing Student Critical Thinking: Review of Literature and Case Study of a Critical Thinking Online Site

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-55
Author(s):  
Erst Carmichael ◽  
◽  
Helen Farrell ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Thinking ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Thinking Skills ◽  
Critical Thinking Skills ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Review Of Literature ◽  
Approach To Learning ◽  
The University ◽  
Critical Thinker

A graduate's ability to be a critical thinker is expected by many employers; therefore development of students’ critical-thinking skills in higher education is important. There is also a perception that today’s students are technologically "savvy", and appreciate the inclusion of a technological approach to learning. However, the complexity of the concept of critical thinking and the assumptions about students’ technological skills are debatable issues that require clarification and evidence-based research in terms of teaching and learning. This paper reports on a case study of an online Blackboard site at the University of Western Sydney, where analysis of patterns of usage of the online site and qualitative analysis of student feedback provide evidence to support its effectiveness for encouraging students' critical thinking. There is potential to expand this into a more widely usable teaching and learning resource in the future, and for further research to explore the benefits for student learning.

scholarly journals Teaching and learning how to make informed health choices: Protocol for a context analysis in Spanish primary schools

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 312
Author(s):  
Laura Martínez García ◽  
Laura Samsó Jofra ◽  
Pablo Alonso-Coello ◽  
Eukane Ansuategi ◽  
Laia Asso Mistral ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Thinking ◽  
Primary Schools ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Primary School Children ◽  
Learning Resources ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Systematic Assessment ◽  
Education And Health ◽  
Health Choices

Introduction The Informed Health Choices (IHC) project developed learning resources to teach primary school children (10 to 12-year-olds) to assess treatment claims and make informed health choices. The aim of our study is to explore the educational context for teaching and learning critical thinking about health in Spanish primary schools. Methods During the 2020-2021 school year, we will conduct 1) a systematic assessment of educational documents and resources, and 2) semi-structured interviews with key education and health stakeholders. In the systematic assessment of educational documents and resources, we will include state and autonomous communities’ curriculums, school educational projects, and commonly used textbooks and other health teaching materials. In the semi-structured interviews, we will involve education and health policy makers, developers of learning resources, developers of health promotion and educational interventions, head teachers, teachers, families, and paediatric primary care providers. We will design and pilot a data extraction form and a semi-structured interview guide to collect the data. We will perform a quantitative and a qualitative analysis of the data to explore how critical thinking about health is being taught and learned in Spanish primary schools. Conclusion We will identify opportunities for and barriers to teaching and learning critical thinking about health in Spanish primary schools. We will formulate recommendations—for both practice and research purposes—on how to use, adapt (if needed), and implement the IHC resources in this context.

Comparative Analysis: The State of Colorado Study, Part II

2004 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
Kathryn Mueller ◽  
Douglas Van Zet ◽  
Debra J. Northrup ◽  
Edward B. Whitney ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Daily Living ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Pain Syndrome ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Assessments ◽  
Physician Judgment ◽  
History Of ◽  
Key Terms ◽  
Causation Analysis ◽  
Work Interference

Abstract [Continued from the January/February 2004 issue of The Guides Newsletter.] To understand discrepancies in reviewers’ ratings of impairments based on different editions of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), users can usefully study the history of the revisions as successive editions attempted to provide a comprehensive, valid, reliable, unbiased, and evidence-based system. Some shortcomings of earlier editions have been addressed in the AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, but problems remain with each edition, largely because of the limited scientific evidence available. In the context of the history of the different editions of the AMA Guides and their development, the authors discuss and contextualize a number of key terms and principles including the following: definitions of impairment and normal; activities of daily living; maximum medical improvement; impairment percentages; conversion of regional impairments; combining impairments; pain and other subjective complaints; physician judgment; and causation analysis; finally, the authors note that impairment is not synonymous with disability or work interference. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, contrasts impairment evaluations and independent medical evaluations (this was not done in previous editions) and discusses impairment evaluations, rules for evaluations, and report standards. Upper extremity and lower extremity impairment evaluations are discussed in terms of clinical assessments and rating processes, analyzing important changes between editions and problematic areas (eg, complex regional pain syndrome).

EL PENSAMIENTO CRÍTICO EN LA EDUCACIÓN DE POSGRADO: PROPUESTA DE UN MODELO PARA SU INTEGRACIÓN AL PROCESO EDUCATIVO

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Manosalvas Vaca ◽  
Luis Manosalvas Vaca ◽  
Ruth Barba
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Critical Thinking ◽  
Detailed Analysis ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Learning Processes ◽  
Educación Superior ◽  
Educacion Superior ◽  
Educational Processes ◽  
Palabras Clave

La presente investigación, analiza los conceptos más importantes del pensamiento Crítico, así como su importancia y utilidad en los procesos de formación profesional a nivel de Posgrado. Se hace un análisis detallado de los conceptos más ampliamente aceptado y de los factores inmersos en el desarrollo y aplicación de este tipo de pensamiento. Finalmente se propone un modelo que engloba los conceptos y factores analizados y como se interrelacionan entre ellos; el objetivo final es brindar a los docentes y directivos de Instituciones de Educación Superior, una herramienta que posibilite la inclusión de este tipo de pensamiento en sus procesos enseñanza-aprendizaje con el fin último de mejorar la calidad de los procesos de formación. Palabras Clave: Pensamiento Crítico, Educación Superior, Educación ABSTRACT This research analyzes the most important concepts of critical thinking as well as their importance and usefulness for the educational processes at graduate level. A detailed analysis of the most widely accepted concepts and factors involved in the development and application of this kind of thinking has been made. Finally, a model that includes the concepts and analyzed factors and their interrelations is proposed; the ultimate goal is to provide teachers and directors of Institutions in Higher Education, a tool that enables the inclusion of this type of thinking in their teaching and learning processes with the ultimate intention of improving the quality of the training processes. Keywords: Critical thinking, Higher Education, Education Recibido: mayo de 2016Aprobado: septiembre de 2016

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document