Effects of the Informed Health Choices primary school intervention on the ability of children in Uganda to assess the reliability of claims about treatment effects, 1-year follow-up: a cluster-randomised trial

Table 14 Self-reported behaviour: assessment of trustworthiness of treatment claims

How sure are you that the treatment claim you heard is true or can be trusted?
	Control schools N = 2844	Intervention schools N = 3943
Missing	49 (1.7%)	60 (1.5%)
Not very sure because I don’t know the reason behind the claim	665 (23.4%)	1039 (26.4%)
Not very sure because the reason behind the claim was not good	543 (19.1%)	1087 (27.6%)
Very sure because the reason behind the claim was good	704 (24.8%)	790 (20.0%)
I don’t know because I don’t know how to decide whether it is true or not	883 (31.0%)	967 (24.5%)
Very sure or I don’t know	1587 (55.8%)	1757 (44.6%)
Odds ratio (very sure or I don’t know vs other)	0.55 (95% CI, 0.45–0.67) P < 0.0001
Adjusted difference^a	−15.0% (95% CI, − 9.9% to − 19.7%)
Odds ratio (consistent with what they identified as the basis for the claim)^b	1.45 (95% CI, 1.18–1.75) P = 0.000549
Adjusted difference^a	7.6% (95% CI 3.5% - 11.1%)

^aThe differences are adjusted differences, based on mixed models with a random effects term for the clusters and the stratification variables modelled as fixed effects, using logistic regression. The odds ratio from the logistic regression has been converted to a difference using the intervention schools as the reference and the inverse of the odds ratios shown here
^bSee Table 5

ISSN: 1745-6215