Tropical Institute Of Community Health And Development

IntroductionThe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsOut 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.ConclusionThis 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 registrationPan African Clinical Trial Registry, trial identifier: PACTR202204883917313. Registered on 05/04/2022.

BackgroundThe 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 HealthSPH 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.ConclusionSPHs 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.

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. 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. 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. As far as we know, the framework is the first tool of its kind for education research. It can be improved upon and adapted.

The revised article has articulated critical issues., well written

Background Learning to thinking critically about health information and choices can protect people from unnecessary suffering, harm, and resource waste. Earlier work revealed that children can learn these skills, but printing costs and curricula compatibility remain important barriers to school implementation. We aimed to develop a set of digital learning resources for students to think critically about health that were suitable for use in Kenyan, Rwandan, and Ugandan secondary schools. Methods We conducted work in two phases collaborating with teachers, students, schools, and national curriculum development offices using a human-centered design approach. First, we conducted context analyses and an overview of teaching strategies, prioritised content and collected examples. Next, we developed lessons and guidance iteratively, informed by data from user-testing, individual and group interviews, and school pilots. Results Final resources include online lesson plans, teachers’ guide, and extra resources, with lesson plans in two modes, for use in a classroom equipped with a blackboard/flip-chart and a projector. The resources are accessible offline for use when electricity or Internet is lacking. Teachers preferred the projector mode, as it provided structure and a focal point for class attention. Feedback was largely positive, with teachers and students appreciating the learning and experiencing it as relevant. Four main challenges included time to teach lessons; incorrect comprehension; identifying suitable examples; and technical, logistical, and behavioural challenges with a student-computer mode that we piloted. We resolved challenges by simplifying and combining lessons; increasing opportunities for review and assessment; developing teacher training materials, creating a searchable set of examples; and deactivating the student-computer mode. Conclusion Using a human-centred design approach, we created digital resources for teaching secondary school students to think critically about health actions and for training teachers. Be smart about your health resources are open access and can be translated or adapted to other settings.

BackgroundGood health decisions depend on one’s ability to think critically about health claims and make informed health choices. Young people can learn these skills through school-based interventions, but learning resources need to be low-cost and built around lessons that can fit into existing curricula. As a first step to developing and evaluating digital learning resources that are feasible to use in Kenyan secondary schools, we conducted a context analysis to explore interest in critical thinking for health, map where critical thinking about health best fits in the curriculum, explore conditions for introducing new learning resources, and describe the information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure available for teaching and learning.MethodsWe employed a qualitative descriptive approach. We interviewed 15 key informants, carried out two focus group discussions, observed ICT conditions in five secondary schools, reviewed seven documents, and conducted an online catalog of ICT infrastructure in all schools (n=250) in Kisumu County. Participants included national curriculum developers, national ICT officers, teachers, and national examiners. We used a framework analysis approach to analyze data and report findings.FindingsAlthough critical thinking is a core competence in the curriculum, critical thinking about health is not currently taught in Kenyan secondary schools. Teachers, health officials, and curriculum developers recognized the importance of teaching critical thinking about health in secondary schools. Stakeholders agreed that Informed Health Choices learning resources could be embedded in nine subjects. The National Institute of Curriculum Development regulates resources for learning; the development of new resources requires collaboration and approval from this body. Most schools do not use ICT for teaching, and for those few that do, the use is limited. Implementation of Kenya’s ICT policy framework for schools faces several challenges which include inadequate ICT infrastructure, poor internet connectivity, and teachers’ lack of training and experience.ConclusionTeaching critical thinking about health is possible within the current Kenyan lower secondary school curriculum, but the learning resources will need to be designed for inclusion in and across existing subjects. The National ICT Plan and Vision for 2030 provides an opportunity for scale-up and integration of technology in teaching and learning environments, which can enable future use of digital resources in schools. However, given the current ICT condition in schools in the country, digital learning resources should be designed to function with limited ICT infrastructure, unstable Internet access, and for use by teachers with low levels of experience using digital technology.

<strong>Background</strong>: Many people find it difficult to make decisions about what to believe or do regarding “health actions” (things that they can do to care for their health or the health of others). To avoid being misled by unreliable information and to make good choices, people must be able to understand and apply some basic principles (concepts). The Informed Health Choices (IHC) secondary school resources are designed to help students learn and use nine of these concepts. This is a protocol for a prospective meta-analysis of three cluster-randomized trials in Kenya, Rwanda, and Uganda. <strong>Objective</strong>: To estimate the effect of using the IHC secondary school resources in addition to the standard curriculum compared to the standard curriculum in the context where the trial is conducted) on students’ ability to think critically about health actions. <strong>Methods</strong>: The participants are lower secondary school students (age 14-16) and their teachers. The intervention is a 2-3-day teacher training workshop, a teachers’ guide, and 10 40-minute lessons taught to the students during a single school term. The comparison is the standard curriculum in each country. The primary outcome measure is the Critical Thinking about Health (CTH) Test. The test is a measure of an individual’s ability to understand and apply the nine key critical thinking concepts included in the lessons. It includes two multiple-choice questions for each concept. The primary outcome is the proportion of students with a passing score on the test. Secondary outcomes include the average score on the test, the proportion of students with a score that indicates mastery of the nine concepts, retention of what the students learned after one year, self-efficacy, intended behaviours, performance on standard, end-of-term examinations, and teachers’ ability to understand and apply the nine concepts measured using the CTH Test. Overall effects will be estimated using inverse variance methods. We will use mixed effects models with individual student data to estimate variation in effects for the primary and first two secondary outcomes in relation to three potential effect modifiers: use of a projector version compared to a blackboard version of the lessons, class size, and student performance on end-of-term examinations prior to the intervention. <strong>Strengths and limitations</strong>: Strengths of this meta-analysis are that it is prospective, allowing for collaboration on the design of the trials and certainty that all eligible trials have been included. A limitation is that the review authors are both developing and evaluating the intervention, although there are efforts to minimise bias.

Background: Children from nomadic pastoralist communities might not receive all the recommended doses of vaccines at age-appropriate times due to limited access to immunization services. Skipped, delayed or missed vaccination doses result in under vaccination which in turn make children vulnerable to preventable diseases. The purpose of present study was to establish completion timeliness and under-vaccination of all the recommended childhood vaccinations in a nomadic pastoralist community.Methods: Authors used a cluster sampling technique to identify children aged 0 to 24 months at the household level. Vaccine completion was the accumulation of the required number of doses by infants irrespective of the timing. Timeliness was vaccines administered within the recommended age range. Under vaccination was the sum total of days a delayed vaccine was given after the recommended age range.Results: Completion of all individual antigens did not meet the target of 90%. The mean number of days a child remained under-vaccinated in days was: OPV0, 20 days; BCG, 39 days; measles vaccine, 47 days; PVC3, 121 days; pentavalent, 117 days, and rotavirus, 103 days. Approximately 42% were severely under-vaccinated for more than six months. Vaccine-specific under-vaccination of more than six months was: pentavalent 3, 20%; PCV 3, 14%; OPV 3, 9.5%; BCG, 3%, and measles vaccine 20%. Overall children remained under-vaccinated for 185 days.Conclusions: A significant proportion of children remained under vaccinated for extended periods leaving them at risk during a vulnerable period of their life.

Although the need for early identification and interventions of disabilities is evident, the current state of routine screening practice in Kenya needs intensive training of screeners before more rigorous techniques are introduced. To compare the precision and practical utility of the 'ten questions' and EARC screens among the 2- 9 year olds in a community setting. In this analytical comparative cross-sectional survey of two disabilities screening methods. multiphase sampling and multistage data collection procedures were employed. Quantitative research utilizing structured interview checklist was used for data collection. It described the prevalence rates of different types of disabilities using both methods. It analyzed the precision and practical utility of the two methods in a community setting. 64 of the 399 children under study were disabled (50.5% male and 49.5% female). The 'ten questions' picks up only those problems that are of great concern to families. EARC services are a more definite case defining process of measuring the existence and degree of disability in children. It screens the children who are severely disabled leaving out the mildly disabled and medical conditions which, when left untreated, could lead to possible disablement. Parents need to be sensitized about symptoms requiring the ten questions that can be used to screen out the potentially disabled children and the Education Assessment and Resource Centres (EARC) be used to diagnose the type and degree of the disability and refer the ill children for treatment. The basic needs of disabled children could be met in the community and do not require highly specialized personnel. They need to be localized and accessible.