0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Teaching and learning how to make informed health choices: Protocol for a context analysis in Spanish primary schools

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          The Informed Health Choices (IHC) project developed learning resources to teach primary school children (10 to 12-year-olds) to assess treatment claims and make informed health choices. The aim of our study is to explore the educational context for teaching and learning critical thinking about health in Spanish primary schools.

          Methods

          During the 2020-2021 school year, we will conduct 1) a systematic assessment of educational documents and resources, and 2) semi-structured interviews with key education and health stakeholders. In the systematic assessment of educational documents and resources, we will include state and autonomous communities’ curriculums, school educational projects, and commonly used textbooks and other health teaching materials. In the semi-structured interviews, we will involve education and health policy makers, developers of learning resources, developers of health promotion and educational interventions, head teachers, teachers, families, and paediatric primary care providers. We will design and pilot a data extraction form and a semi-structured interview guide to collect the data. We will perform a quantitative and a qualitative analysis of the data to explore how critical thinking about health is being taught and learned in Spanish primary schools.

          Conclusion

          We will identify opportunities for and barriers to teaching and learning critical thinking about health in Spanish primary schools. We will formulate recommendations—for both practice and research purposes—on how to use, adapt (if needed), and implement the IHC resources in this context.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

          Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Health literacy and public health: A systematic review and integration of definitions and models

            Background Health literacy concerns the knowledge and competences of persons to meet the complex demands of health in modern society. Although its importance is increasingly recognised, there is no consensus about the definition of health literacy or about its conceptual dimensions, which limits the possibilities for measurement and comparison. The aim of the study is to review definitions and models on health literacy to develop an integrated definition and conceptual model capturing the most comprehensive evidence-based dimensions of health literacy. Methods A systematic literature review was performed to identify definitions and conceptual frameworks of health literacy. A content analysis of the definitions and conceptual frameworks was carried out to identify the central dimensions of health literacy and develop an integrated model. Results The review resulted in 17 definitions of health literacy and 12 conceptual models. Based on the content analysis, an integrative conceptual model was developed containing 12 dimensions referring to the knowledge, motivation and competencies of accessing, understanding, appraising and applying health-related information within the healthcare, disease prevention and health promotion setting, respectively. Conclusions Based upon this review, a model is proposed integrating medical and public health views of health literacy. The model can serve as a basis for developing health literacy enhancing interventions and provide a conceptual basis for the development and validation of measurement tools, capturing the different dimensions of health literacy within the healthcare, disease prevention and health promotion settings.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Overview of qualitative research.

              Qualitative research methods are a robust tool for chaplaincy research questions. Similar to much of chaplaincy clinical care, qualitative research generally works with written texts, often transcriptions of individual interviews or focus group conversations and seeks to understand the meaning of experience in a study sample. This article describes three common methodologies: ethnography, grounded theory, and phenomenology. Issues to consider relating to the study sample, design, and analysis are discussed. Enhancing the validity of the data, as well reliability and ethical issues in qualitative research are described. Qualitative research is an accessible way for chaplains to contribute new knowledge about the sacred dimension of people's lived experience.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding AcquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Journal
                F1000Res
                F1000Res
                F1000Research
                F1000 Research Limited (London, UK )
                2046-1402
                11 August 2021
                2021
                : 10
                : 312
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre (IbCC) - Sant Pau Biomedical Research Institute (IIB-Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain
                [2 ]CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain
                [3 ]Epidemiology and Public Health Department, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain
                [4 ]Osakidetza, OSI Donostialdea, University Hospital of Donostia, Library Service, Donostia, Spain
                [5 ]Maternal and Child Health Service, General Subdirectorate of Health Promotion, Public Health Agency of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain
                [6 ]Andalusian Health Service, Malaga, Spain
                [7 ]Health Services Research Group – Vall d’Hebron Research Institute (VHIR), Barcelona, Spain
                [8 ]Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain
                [9 ]Clinical Epidemiology and Research Unit, University Hospital of Donostia, Donostia, Spain
                [10 ]Centre for Informed Health Choices, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
                [1 ]The Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Qld, Australia
                [1 ]Health Research Board-Trials Methodology Research Network (HRB-TMRN), Evidence Synthesis Ireland and Cochrane Ireland, School of Nursing & Midwifery, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland
                Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre - Sant Pau Biomedical Research Institute (IIB-Sant Pau), Spain
                [1 ]The Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Qld, Australia
                Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre - Sant Pau Biomedical Research Institute (IIB-Sant Pau), Spain
                Author notes

                No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: I declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: I declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0126-8706
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5975-702X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0400-0679
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1539-3543
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5244-4795
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1872-4130
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6587-2780
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3479-4550
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0043-1364
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4845-4899
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6605-2941
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0498-6033
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8334-7664
                Article
                10.12688/f1000research.51961.2
                8474100
                34631019
                1ec4cedc-3104-4a99-bef2-34a261ee9395
                Copyright: © 2021 Martínez García L et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 6 August 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: Institute of Health Carlos III
                Award ID: PI19/00068
                Award ID: CP18/00007
                This study will be funded by Institute of Health Carlos III through the project 'PI19/00068' (co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund/European Social Fund, 'Investing in your future'). LMG has a Miguel Servet research contract from the Institute of Health Carlos III [CP18/00007] (co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund/European Social Fund, 'Investing in your future'). The funder will play no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report.
                The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Study Protocol
                Articles

                children’s health,critical thinking,evidence-based medicine,health education,health promotion,public health.

                Comments

                Comment on this article