Margaret Kaseje’s research while affiliated with African Institute for Health and Development and other places

Background We conducted an overview of systematic reviews about the effects of teaching strategies that can be used to teach primary and secondary school students to think critically. Our objective was to inform decisions about what teaching strategies to use in resources that we developed to teach critical thinking about health in secondary schools. Methods We mapped characteristics of systematic reviews of teaching strategies and summarised findings from the most relevant reviews to teaching students to think critically about health. We included reviews that assessed the effects of teaching strategies that could potentially be used in primary or secondary schools to teach students to think critically, had a Methods section with explicit selection criteria, reported at least one outcome measure of the ability to undertake one of four basic types of cognitive tasks (memory, procedural, comprehension, or opinion), and were published after 1999. Results We included 326 systematic reviews. The reviews evaluated a wide range of teaching strategies for a variety of purposes. Important limitations of the reviews included not considering adverse effects (99% of the reviews), not assessing the risk of bias for included studies (93% of the reviews), and not assessing the credibility of subgroup effects (100% of the reviews). We summarised the findings for 37 teaching strategies that we considered most relevant. The certainty of the evidence of the effects varied from very low to moderate. We used 12 of the strategies in resources that we developed to teach secondary students to think critically about health. Conclusions A tremendous amount of work has gone into evaluating the effects of a wide range of teaching strategies. The results of this research can inform decisions about how to teach critical thinking and future research. However, well-designed, up-to-date systematic reviews are still needed for many teaching strategies.

Introduction The Informed Health Choices (IHC) secondary school intervention aimed to teach students to assess claims about treatments. This follow-up of a cluster randomized trial assessed the retention of knowledge and the application of the nine prioritized IHC key concepts 1 year after the intervention. Methods We conducted a random assignment of 80 secondary schools in Western Kenya into either the intervention (n = 40) or control (n = 40) group. Both groups adhered to the standard curriculum. Teachers from the intervention group were invited to participate in a 2-day training workshop and were granted access to “Be Smart About Your Health” digital resources, comprising 10 lessons. These lessons, focused on nine prioritized IHC concepts, delivered over a single school term from May to August 2022. The digital resources were accessible online via smartphones or computers and could also be downloaded for offline use. The primary outcome measure, assessed at the end of the school term and again after 1 year, was the percentage of students achieving a passing score (defined as ≥ 9 out of 18 correct answers) on the “Critical Thinking about Health” test. Results Out of the total 3360 students involved in the trial, 2446 (72.8%) completed the test after 1 year. Within the intervention group, 728 out of 1369 students (53.2%) achieved a passing score after 1 year, compared to 61.7% immediately post-intervention. In contrast, in the control group, 347 out of 1077 students (32.2%) had a passing score after 1 year. The adjusted difference in passing rates between the intervention and control groups after 1 year was 20.8% (with a 95% confidence interval of 13.6 to 28.0%), compared to 27.3% (with a 95% confidence interval of 19.6 to 34.9%) immediately after the intervention. Conclusion This study demonstrates that students were able to retain knowledge and the ability to apply the IHC key concepts, 1 year after the intervention. But fewer students in the intervention group had a passing score after 1 year compared to just after the intervention. Highlighting follow-up training is likely necessary to reinforce these skills over time. Trial registration Pan African Clinical Trial Registry, trial identifier: PACTR202204883917313. Registered on 05/04/2022.

Introduction We assessed the effects of the Informed Health Choices (IHC) secondary school intervention on students’ ability to think critically about choices 1 year after the intervention. Methods We randomized eighty secondary schools to the intervention or control (usual curriculum). The schools were randomly selected from the central region of Uganda and included rural and urban, government, and privately-owned schools. One randomly selected class of year-2 students (ages 14–17) from each school participated in the trial. The intervention included a 2-day teacher training workshop, 10 lessons accessed online by teachers and delivered in classrooms during one school term (May–August 2022). The lessons addressed nine prioritized IHC concepts. We used two multiple-choice questions for each concept to evaluate the students’ ability to think critically about choices at both the end of the school term and again after 1 year. The primary outcome was the proportion of students with a passing score (≥ 9 of 18 questions answered correctly) on the “Critical Thinking about Health” (CTH) test. Results After 1-year, 71% (1749/2477) of the students in the intervention schools and 71% (1684/2376) of the students in the control schools completed the CTH test. In the intervention schools, 53% (934/1749) of students who completed the test had a passing score compared to 33% (557/1684) of students in the control schools (adjusted difference 22%, 95% CI 16–28). Conclusions The effect of the IHC secondary school intervention on students’ ability to assess health-related claims was largely sustained for at least 1 year. Trial registration Pan African Clinical Trial Registry PACTR202204861458660. Registered on 4 April 2022.

Introduction We evaluated the Informed Health Choices secondary school intervention in a cluster randomized trial in Rwanda. The intervention was effective in helping students to think critically about health. In parallel to the trial, we conducted a process evaluation to assess factors affecting the implementation, impacts, and scale-up of the intervention. Methods We used a mixed methods approach that included quantitative and qualitative methods. We collected quantitative data from teachers to evaluate the teacher training and each lesson. We conducted focus group discussions with students (n=10) and their parents/guardians (n=5). We conducted lesson observations (n=16) and key informant interviews with teachers (n=10) and school administrators (n=10) from intervention schools and policymakers (n=2). We analyzed the quantitative data using descriptive statistics. We used framework analysis and thematic content analysis to analyze the qualitative data. Results Teachers noted that the teacher training supported their delivery of the intervention and that they made only small adaptations to fit student, teacher, or contextual needs. Students reported obtaining important skills, including recognizing health claims, understanding the need for research, and “thinking twice” before deciding. Participants saw the design of the intervention, students’ and teachers’ motivation, and school and home support as key facilitators for the implementation and impact of the intervention. Implementation barriers identified included the content of the lessons not being included in national examinations, competing priorities, and time constraints. Participants identified several factors that could facilitate intervention scale-up, including the need for the skills taught in the lessons and compatibility of the intervention with the national curriculum. Conclusion We found that it was feasible to implement the intervention in Rwandan secondary schools and that students benefited from the intervention. Scaling up the intervention will likely require addressing the barriers identified in this study.

Introduction: We evaluated the Informed Health Choices secondary school intervention to help students in Kenya think critically about health choices. We conducted this process evaluation to explore if the intervention was implemented as planned, identify factors that facilitated or hindered implementation, potential benefits of the intervention, and how to scale up the intervention beyond the trial. Methods: This was a mixed methods process evaluation nested in a cluster-randomized trial of the Informed Health Choices intervention. We analyzed quantitative data from teacher training evaluation forms completed by 39 teachers, 10 lesson evaluation forms completed by 40 teachers allocated to the intervention, and 72 structured classroom observation forms. We conducted a framework analysis of qualitative data from 14 group interviews (with 96 students, 23 teachers, and 18 parents) and 22 individual interviews (with 8 teachers, 5 school principals, 6 curriculum developers, and 3 policymakers). We assessed confidence in our findings from the qualitative analysis using a modified version of Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research. Results: Lesson objectives were achieved with minimal adaptations. Factors that might have facilitated the implementation of the intervention include teacher training; perceived value of the intervention by students, teachers, and policymakers; and support from school administration. Time constraints, teachers' heavy workloads, and the lessons not being included in the curriculum or national examination are factors that might have impeded implementation. Both students and teachers demonstrated the ability to apply key concepts that were taught to health choices and other choices. However, they experienced difficulties with 2 of the lessons. Conclusion: Scale-up of this intervention in Kenyan schools is feasible but may depend on adjusting the time allocated to teaching the lessons, modifying the 2 lessons that teachers and students found difficult, and including the lesson objectives and assessment in the national curriculum.

Introduction: We designed the Informed Health Choices (IHC) secondary school intervention and evaluated whether it improves students' ability to assess the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects in Uganda. We conducted a process evaluation alongside a randomized trial to identify factors that may affect the implementation, fidelity, and scaling up of the intervention in Uganda. We also explored the potential adverse and beneficial effects of the intervention. Methods: We used mixed methods to collect, triangulate, and report data from a variety of sources. We observed at least 1 lesson in all 40 intervention schools. One teacher from each of these schools completed a teacher training evaluation form and lesson evaluation questionnaires after each lesson. We purposively selected 10 schools where we conducted a total of 10 focus group discussions with students and 1 with parents. We also conducted key informant interviews with policymakers (N=9), teachers (N=10), head teachers (N=4), and parents (N=3). We used a framework analysis approach to analyze the data. Findings: All participants in the process evaluation felt that the IHC intervention was needed, important, and timely. Students were motivated to attend class and learn the content because it spoke to their daily life experiences and their own challenges to decide what to do or believe when faced with health claims. The training workshop gave teachers the confidence to teach the lessons. The participating students demonstrated a clear understanding of the content and use of what was learned. The content improved both students' and teachers' appreciation of the critical thinking, communication, and problem-solving competencies in the lower secondary school curriculum. Conclusion: The findings of this process evaluation are consistent with the findings of the trial, which showed that the intervention improved the students' critical thinking skills. The IHC resources enabled teachers to teach this competency.

Background We conducted an overview of systematic reviews about the effects of teaching strategies that can be used to teach primary and secondary school students to think critically. Our objective was to inform decisions about what teaching strategies to use in resources that we developed to teach critical thinking about health in secondary schools. Methods We mapped characteristics of systematic reviews of teaching strategies and summarised findings from the most relevant reviews to teaching students to think critically about health. We included reviews that assessed the effects of teaching strategies that could potentially be used in primary or secondary schools to teach students to think critically, had a Methods section with explicit selection criteria, reported at least one outcome measure of the ability to undertake one of four basic types of cognitive tasks (memory, procedural, comprehension, or opinion), and were published after 1999. Results We included 326 systematic reviews. The reviews evaluated a wide range of teaching strategies for a variety of purposes. Important limitations of the reviews included not considering adverse effects (99% of the reviews), not assessing the risk of bias for included studies (93% of the reviews), and not assessing the credibility of subgroup effects (100% of the reviews). We summarised the findings for 37 teaching strategies that we considered most relevant. The certainty of the evidence of the effects varied from very low to moderate. We used 12 of the strategies in resources that we developed to teach secondary students to think critically about health. Conclusions A tremendous amount of work has gone into evaluating the effects of a wide range of teaching strategies. The results of this research can inform decisions about how to teach critical thinking and future research. However, well-designed, up-to-date systematic reviews are still needed for many teaching strategies.

Background The Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic caused significant morbidity and mortality in Africa, in addition to other socio-economic consequences. Across the continent, Schools of Public Health (SPHs) played several roles in supporting national, regional, and global response to the pandemic. Following a published and grey literature search, this paper reviews and analyses the contribution of SPHs in Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic. Contribution of the Schools of Public Health SPH faculty in most countries contributed their expertise through COVID-19 task forces and advisory committees where they guided and supported decision-making. Faculty also supported the identification, review, and synthesis of rapidly evolving global and local evidence, adapting it to the local context to guide policy decisions. Through research, SPHs contributed to a better understanding of the disease epidemiology, response interventions, as well as prevention and control measures. SPHs engaged in training field epidemiologists, frontline health workers, and district response teams. SPH staff, students and field epidemiology trainees also supported field activities including surveillance, contact tracing, as well as managing quarantine facilities and points of entry. SPHs engaged in public education and awareness-raising initiatives to share information and dispel misinformation. In partnership with other stakeholders, SPHs also developed important innovations and technologies. Conclusion SPHs are a critical pillar for pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response, that support health systems with important functions. To further enhance their capacity, efforts to improve coordination of SPHs, strengthen collaboration among schools, harmonize training and curricula, and enhance capacity for advanced research are needed. There is also a need to bridge the inequities in capacity and resources that exist among SPHs across regions and countries.

Background People need critical thinking skills to make well-informed health choices and avoid waste and unnecessary suffering. However, educational interventions can have adverse effects, which is often overlooked. We created a framework of potential harms of interventions to improve critical thinking about health choices. The objective was to identify potential effects and articulate potential mechanisms. We intended to use the framework to inform the development and evaluation of an intervention in Kenya, Rwanda, and Uganda. Methods We created an initial framework drawing on two earlier frameworks. We surveyed external experts using Likert-scale and open-ended items, including researchers, educators, and others, in a variety of relevant fields. We emailed the survey to an international advisory network, and all other experts recommended by respondents. We analyzed the quantitative data using descriptive statistics. We conducted a thematic analysis of the qualitative data. We revised the framework based on those results. To identify any effects missing from the revised framework, we individually interviewed a convenience sample of one teacher from each of Kenya, Rwanda, and Uganda. Results We received responses from 38 of 70 external experts (54%). The quantitative survey data suggested respondents agreed with the initial framework overall. However, the qualitative data led to substantial revisions. The revised framework consists of categories of adverse outcomes; outcomes within each category; sub-outcomes; individuals, groups, and populations that might experience each adverse outcome; beneficial outcomes corresponding with adverse outcomes; and potential mechanisms of adverse effects. There are six categories: decision-making harms, psychological harms, equity harms, group and social harms, waste, and other harms. In the interviews with teachers, we did not identify any effects missing from the revised framework. Conclusions As far as we know, the framework is the first tool of its kind for education research. It can be improved upon and adapted.