Development of a framework of potential adverse effects of interventions to improve critical thinking about health choices: A mixed methods study.

<ns3:p>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.</ns3:p>

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
F1000Research
Published
2025-12-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.158042.2
Primary Topic
Education and Critical Thinking Development
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Development of a framework of potential adverse effects of interventions to improve critical thinking about health choices: A mixed methods study.

Benson Ngatia, Ronald Ssenyonga, Nelson Kaulukusi Sewankambo, Sarah Rosenbaum et al.
F1000Research
Education and Critical Thinking Development
article

Development of a framework of potential adverse effects of interventions to improve critical thinking about health choices: A mixed methods study.

Benson Ngatia, Ronald Ssenyonga, Nelson Kaulukusi Sewankambo, Sarah Rosenbaum, Margaret Kaseje, Faith Chesire, Simon Lewin, Andrew David Oxman, Jenny Moberg, Michael Mugisha, Allen Nsangi, Matt Oxman, Atle Fretheim, Monica Melby-Lervåg
article en

Abstract

<ns3:p>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.</ns3:p>

F1000ResearchVol. 13
South African Medical Research Council (ZA), Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NO), OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University (NO), University of Oslo (NO), Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO), University of Kigali (RW), University of Global Health Equity (RW), Rwanda Biomedical Center (RW), Tropical Institute Of Community Health And Development (KE), Makerere University (UG), Great Lakes University of Kisumu (KE)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 16%
Education and Critical Thinking Development
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.