- 10.00: Trial lecture
- 12.00: Public defence
The ordinary opponents are:
- First opponent: Professor Shaun Treweek, University of Aberdeen, UK
- Second opponent: Deputy Head of Department (PhD) Nina Rydland Olsen, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences
- Leader of the evaluation committee: Associate Professor Hilde Tinderhold Myrhaug, OsloMet
The leader of the public defense is Professor Victoria Telle Hjellset, OsloMet.
The main supervisor is Research Director/Professor Atle Fretheim, The Norwegian Institute of Public Health and OsloMet.
The co-supervisor is Professor Monica Melby-Lervåg, University of Oslo.
Thesis abstract
We all make many health choices every day—decisions about medicines, diet, exercise, and much more. At the same time, we face endless claims about what is good or bad for our health.
The claims come from anyone and anywhere—for example, family and friends around the dinner table, influencers and advertisers on social media, and doctors or researchers in the news. Some of the claims are reliable, meaning they are likely to be true. Others are unreliable.
Many people lack critical thinking skills that are essential for separating reliable health claims from unreliable health claims, and making smart health choices. This may lead them to trusting and acting on unreliable claims or failing to act on reliable advice.
In either case, they might waste money or suffer unnecessarily. In low-income countries, people generally have less money to waste, compared to other countries.
Therefore, it is important to help people learn how to think critically about health choices, especially in low-income countries.
However, any action can have negative effects, not just positive effects. This includes actions to improve people’s health, such as taking medicines, but also actions to help people learn something.
My thesis is part of a project in which we designed and tested educational resources for secondary schools in Kenya, Rwanda, and Uganda, to help students think critically about health choices.
The focus of the thesis was possible negative effects of using the resources, as well as similar resources or programs. The thesis included three studies.
Methods
In the first study, we reviewed reports in which researchers described testing educational resources or programs to help people think critically about health choices. We checked whether the researchers tested not just if the program or resources worked, but also whether there were negative effects.
In the second study, we tried to find out what such effects might be, with help from experts in health and education.
In the final study, we explored different groups’ experiences of using our secondary school resources—including students’ and teachers’ experiences—to find out more about the possible negative effects.
Findings
In the first study, we found 35 reports in which researchers described testing educational resources or programs to help people think critically about health choices. In a single one of those reports, the researchers described testing for any negative effects.
In the second and third study, we came up with different categories of negative effects, and effects within those categories—for example, causing students to become anxious that they will make poor health choices.
This thesis might be a useful starting point for people designing or testing educational resources or programs like ours. Overall, it shows that researchers and others should at least consider what might be negative effects of trying to help people think critically about health choices.
