The Norwegian public’s ability to assess treatment claims: results of a cross-sectional study of critical health literacy [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]
Background: Few studies have evaluated the ability of the general public to assess the trustworthiness of claims about the effects of healthcare. For the most part, those studies have used self-reported measures of critical health literacy. Methods: We mailed 4500 invitations to Norwegian adults. Re...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
F1000 Research Ltd
2021-07-01
|
| Series: | F1000Research |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://f1000research.com/articles/9-179/v2 |
| _version_ | 1797222006782951424 |
|---|---|
| author | Kjetil Furuseth-Olsen Astrid Dahlgren Andrew David Oxman Christopher James Rose |
| author_facet | Kjetil Furuseth-Olsen Astrid Dahlgren Andrew David Oxman Christopher James Rose |
| author_sort | Kjetil Furuseth-Olsen |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background: Few studies have evaluated the ability of the general public to assess the trustworthiness of claims about the effects of healthcare. For the most part, those studies have used self-reported measures of critical health literacy. Methods: We mailed 4500 invitations to Norwegian adults. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of four online questionnaires that included multiple-choice questions that test understanding of Key Concepts people need to understand to assess healthcare claims. They also included questions about intended behaviours and self-efficacy. One of the four questionnaires was identical to one previously used in two randomised trials of educational interventions in Uganda, facilitating comparisons to Ugandan children, parents, and teachers. We adjusted the results using demographic data to reflect the population. Results: A total of 771 people responded. The adjusted proportion of Norwegian adults who answered correctly was > 50% for 17 of the 30 Key Concepts. On the other hand, less than half answered correctly for 13 concepts. The results for Norwegian adults were better than the results for Ugandan children in the intervention arm of the trial and parents, and similar to those of Ugandan teachers in the intervention arm of the trial. Based on self-report, most Norwegians are likely to find out the basis of treatment claims, but few consider it easy to assess whether claims are based on research and to assess the trustworthiness of research. Conclusions: Norwegian adults do not understand many concepts that are essential for assessing healthcare claims and making informed choices.Future interventions should be tailored to address Key Concepts for which there appears to be a lack of understanding. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-24T13:14:28Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-eae69b00b0e04217b6c57720f774804c |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2046-1402 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-24T13:14:28Z |
| publishDate | 2021-07-01 |
| publisher | F1000 Research Ltd |
| record_format | Article |
| series | F1000Research |
| spelling | doaj.art-eae69b00b0e04217b6c57720f774804c2024-04-05T00:00:01ZengF1000 Research LtdF1000Research2046-14022021-07-01958717The Norwegian public’s ability to assess treatment claims: results of a cross-sectional study of critical health literacy [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]Kjetil Furuseth-Olsen0Astrid Dahlgren1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6377-3321Andrew David Oxman2Christopher James Rose3https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6457-8168Centre for Informed Health Choices, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Postboks 222 Skøyen, Oslo, 0213, NorwayCentre for Informed Health Choices, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Postboks 222 Skøyen, Oslo, 0213, NorwayCentre for Informed Health Choices, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Postboks 222 Skøyen, Oslo, 0213, NorwayCentre for Informed Health Choices, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Postboks 222 Skøyen, Oslo, 0213, NorwayBackground: Few studies have evaluated the ability of the general public to assess the trustworthiness of claims about the effects of healthcare. For the most part, those studies have used self-reported measures of critical health literacy. Methods: We mailed 4500 invitations to Norwegian adults. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of four online questionnaires that included multiple-choice questions that test understanding of Key Concepts people need to understand to assess healthcare claims. They also included questions about intended behaviours and self-efficacy. One of the four questionnaires was identical to one previously used in two randomised trials of educational interventions in Uganda, facilitating comparisons to Ugandan children, parents, and teachers. We adjusted the results using demographic data to reflect the population. Results: A total of 771 people responded. The adjusted proportion of Norwegian adults who answered correctly was > 50% for 17 of the 30 Key Concepts. On the other hand, less than half answered correctly for 13 concepts. The results for Norwegian adults were better than the results for Ugandan children in the intervention arm of the trial and parents, and similar to those of Ugandan teachers in the intervention arm of the trial. Based on self-report, most Norwegians are likely to find out the basis of treatment claims, but few consider it easy to assess whether claims are based on research and to assess the trustworthiness of research. Conclusions: Norwegian adults do not understand many concepts that are essential for assessing healthcare claims and making informed choices.Future interventions should be tailored to address Key Concepts for which there appears to be a lack of understanding.https://f1000research.com/articles/9-179/v2health literacy critical health literacy evidence-informed decision-making evidence-based practice critical thinking public healtheng |
| spellingShingle | Kjetil Furuseth-Olsen Astrid Dahlgren Andrew David Oxman Christopher James Rose The Norwegian public’s ability to assess treatment claims: results of a cross-sectional study of critical health literacy [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] F1000Research health literacy critical health literacy evidence-informed decision-making evidence-based practice critical thinking public health eng |
| title | The Norwegian public’s ability to assess treatment claims: results of a cross-sectional study of critical health literacy [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] |
| title_full | The Norwegian public’s ability to assess treatment claims: results of a cross-sectional study of critical health literacy [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] |
| title_fullStr | The Norwegian public’s ability to assess treatment claims: results of a cross-sectional study of critical health literacy [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] |
| title_full_unstemmed | The Norwegian public’s ability to assess treatment claims: results of a cross-sectional study of critical health literacy [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] |
| title_short | The Norwegian public’s ability to assess treatment claims: results of a cross-sectional study of critical health literacy [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] |
| title_sort | norwegian public s ability to assess treatment claims results of a cross sectional study of critical health literacy version 2 peer review 1 approved 2 approved with reservations |
| topic | health literacy critical health literacy evidence-informed decision-making evidence-based practice critical thinking public health eng |
| url | https://f1000research.com/articles/9-179/v2 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kjetilfurusetholsen thenorwegianpublicsabilitytoassesstreatmentclaimsresultsofacrosssectionalstudyofcriticalhealthliteracyversion2peerreview1approved2approvedwithreservations AT astriddahlgren thenorwegianpublicsabilitytoassesstreatmentclaimsresultsofacrosssectionalstudyofcriticalhealthliteracyversion2peerreview1approved2approvedwithreservations AT andrewdavidoxman thenorwegianpublicsabilitytoassesstreatmentclaimsresultsofacrosssectionalstudyofcriticalhealthliteracyversion2peerreview1approved2approvedwithreservations AT christopherjamesrose thenorwegianpublicsabilitytoassesstreatmentclaimsresultsofacrosssectionalstudyofcriticalhealthliteracyversion2peerreview1approved2approvedwithreservations AT kjetilfurusetholsen norwegianpublicsabilitytoassesstreatmentclaimsresultsofacrosssectionalstudyofcriticalhealthliteracyversion2peerreview1approved2approvedwithreservations AT astriddahlgren norwegianpublicsabilitytoassesstreatmentclaimsresultsofacrosssectionalstudyofcriticalhealthliteracyversion2peerreview1approved2approvedwithreservations AT andrewdavidoxman norwegianpublicsabilitytoassesstreatmentclaimsresultsofacrosssectionalstudyofcriticalhealthliteracyversion2peerreview1approved2approvedwithreservations AT christopherjamesrose norwegianpublicsabilitytoassesstreatmentclaimsresultsofacrosssectionalstudyofcriticalhealthliteracyversion2peerreview1approved2approvedwithreservations |