Educational interventions to improve people's understanding of key concepts in assessing the effects of health interventions: A systematic review protocol

Systematic Reviews

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Cusack, Leila ^a   Del Mar, Chris B ^a   Chalmers, Iain ^b   Hoffmann, Tammy C ^a  

^a BOND UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b James Lind Initiative   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Consumer; Critical appraisal; Critical health literacy; Education; Health information; Health literacy

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH PRACTITIONER; HUMAN; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RELIABILITY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SOCIAL STATUS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); VALIDITY; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; HEALTH LITERACY; PROCEDURES;

CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH LITERACY; HUMANS;

EID: 84959114677     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20464053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-016-0213-9     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Brann M, Anderson JG. E-medicine and health care consumers: recognizing current problems and possible resolutions for a safer environment. Heal Care Anal. 2002;10:403-15. doi: 10.1023/A:1023483327756.
2. Cline RJ, Haynes KM. Consumer health information seeking on the Internet: the state of the art. Health Educ Res. 2001;16:671-92. doi: 10.1093/her/16.6.671.
3. Dunne SS, Cummins NM, Hannigan A, Shannon B, Dunne C, Cullen W. Generic medicines: an evaluation of the accuracy and accessibility of information available on the internet. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13:115. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-115.
4. Eysenbach G, Diepgen TL. The role of e-health and consumer health informatics for evidence-based patient choice in the 21st century. Clin Dermatol. 2001;19:11-7. doi: 10.1016/S0738-081X(00)00202-9.
5. Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa E-R. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287:2691-700. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.20.2691.
6. Fahy E, Hardikar R, Fox A, Mackay S, Health E. Quality of patient health information on the internet: reviewing a complex and evolving landscape What this study adds. Australas Med J. 2014;7:24-8. doi: 10.4066/AMJ.2014.1900.
7. Kummervold PE, Chronaki CE, Lausen B, Prokosch HU, Rasmussen J, Santana S, et al. eHealth trends in Europe 2005-2007: a population-based survey. J Med Internet Res. 2008;10:1-15. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1023.
8. Fox S, Rainie L. Vital decisions: How Internet users decide what information to trust when they or their loved ones are sick 2002:1-43. http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media//Files/Reports/2002/PIP_Vital_Decisions_May2002.pdf.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2015.
9. Fox S, Duggan M. Health online 2013. Health (Irvine Calif) 2013:1-55. http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media/Files/Reports/PIP_HealthOnline.pdf. Accessed March 31, 2015.
10. Hale TM, Pathipati AS, Zan S, Jethwani K. Representation of health conditions on Facebook: content analysis and evaluation of user engagement. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16:e182. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3275.
11. Donelle L, Booth RG. Health tweets: an exploration of health promotion on twitter. Online J Issues Nurs. 2012;17:4. doi: 10.3912/OJIN.Vol17No03Man04.
12. Egilman D, Druar NM. Spin your science into gold: direct to consumer marketing within social media platforms. Work. 2012;41:4494-502. doi: 10.3233/WOR-2012-0751-4494.
13. Huh J, Delorme D, Reid L. Media credibility and informativeness of direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising. Health Mark Q. 2008;31:27-61. doi: 10.1300/J026v21n03.
14. Sonnenberg FA. Health information on the Internet. Opportunities and pitfalls. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157:151-2. doi: 10.1001/archinte.1997.00440230013002.
15. Eysenbach G, Köhler C. How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. BMJ. 2002;324:573-7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7337.573.
16. Verhoef MJ, Mulkins A, Carlson LE, Hilsden RJ, Kania A. Assessing the role of evidence in patients' evaluation of complementary therapies: a quality study. Integr Cancer Ther. 2007;6:345-53. doi: 10.1177/1534735407309482.
17. Hoffmann TC, Del Mar C. Patients' expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:274. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.6016.
18. FDA (Food and Drug Administration). FDA warns consumers on dangerous products promoted on the Internet. FDA Talk Pap 1997:T97-26. http://www3.scienceblog.com/community/older/archives/M/1/fda0412.htm. Accessed January 24, 2015.
19. Impicciatore P, Pandolfini C, Casella N, Bonati M. Reliability of health information for the public on the world wide web: systematic survey of advice on managing fever in children at home. BMJ. 1997;314:1875. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7098.1875.
20. Scolnick A. WHO considers regulating ads, sale of medical products on Internet. JAMA. 1997;278:1723-4.
21. Wiesbord SD, Soule JB, Kimmel PL. Poison on line - acute renal failure caused by oil of wormwood purchased through the Internet. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:825-7.
22. Eysenbach G, Jadad AR. Evidence-based patient choice and consumer health informatics in the Internet age. J Med Internet Res. 2001;3:E19. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3.2.e19.
23. Eysenbach G. The impact of the Internet on cancer outcomes. CA Cancer J Clin. 2003;53:356-71. doi: 10.3322/canjclin.53.6.356.
24. Austvoll-Dahlgren A, Oxman A, Chalmers I, Nsangi A, Glenton C, Lewin S, et al. Key concepts that people need to understand to assess claims about treatment effects. J Evid Based Med. 2015:[Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12160.
25. Car J, Lang B, Colledge A, Ung C, Majeed A. Interventions for enhancing consumers' online health literacy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011:CD007092. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007092.pub2.
26. Horsley T, Hyde C, Santesso N, Parkes J, Milne R, Stewart R. Teaching critical appraisal skills in healthcare settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;11:CD001270. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001270.pub2.
27. Gundersen MW, Nordheim L, Espehaug B, Flottorp S. Effects of educational interventions for enhancing adolescents abilities in critical appraisal of health claims: a systematic review. PROSPERO 2015;CRD4201501.
28. Evans I, Thornton H, Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Testing treatments. Better research for better healthcare. 2nd ed. London: Pinter & Martin; 2011.
29. Rathbone J, Carter M, Hoffmann T, Glasziou P. Better duplicate detection for systematic reviewers: evaluation of Systematic Review Assistant-Deduplication Module. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1-6. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-6.
30. Sterne J, Higgins J, BC R, ACROBAT-NRSI on behalf of the development group for. A Cochrane Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool: for Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ACROBAT- NRSI), Version 1.0.0 2014. http://www.riskofbias.info. Accessed November 28, 2015.
31. Higgins J, Green S. The Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias. Cochrane Handb Syst Rev Interv Version 510 [updated March 2011] 2011:Table 8.5a. http://ohg.cochrane.org/sites/ohg.cochrane.org/files/uploads/Risk_of_bias_assessment_tool.pdf of bias assessment tool.pdf. Accessed December 3, 2015.
32. Higgins J, Green S. Criteria for judging risk of bias in the "Risk of bias" assessment tool. Cochrane Handb Syst Rev Interv Version 510 [updated March 2011] 2011:Table 8.5c. http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_8/table_8_5_d_criteria_for_judging_risk_of_bias_in_the_risk_of.htm. Accessed December 3, 2015.
33. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011] 2011. http://handbook.cochrane.org/.Accessed December 3, 2015.
34. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349:g7647.