Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 9, 2026
A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting
Published on: January 12, 2018
Development of a framework of potential adverse effects of interventions to improve critical thinking about health
Matt Oxman1,2, Faith Chelagat Chesire3,4, Michael Mugisha4,5
1Centre for Epidemic Interventions Research, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
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.
More Related Videos
06:05The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score PRIUS: A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time
Published on: February 19, 2021
05:26Enactive Phenomenological Approach to the Trier Social Stress Test: A Mixed Methods Point of View
Published on: January 7, 2019
Related Concept Videos
01:25Critical Thinking II
01:13Patient-centered Care
01:24Critical Thinking I
01:19Critical Thinking
Colleges and universities are...
01:25Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...