"Why do the Recommendations Keep Changing?" A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Scrollytelling Web Application to Help Members of the Public Understand Better How and Why Public Health Guidelines Change Over Time

N/AActive Not RecruitingNCT07091591

Laval University525 enrolled

Overview

This study will be an online 3-arm randomized controlled trial. Here intervention group 1 will receive the intervention in the form of an animated cartoon "scrollytelling" outlining the various changes and reasons for changes in public health guidelines in the context of nutrition (e.g. recommendations on fat intake). Intervention group 2 will have a scrollytelling on the reasons why public health recommendations always change in the context of infectious disease control (e.g. during the COVID-19 pandemic). And finally, the control group will receive no intervention.

The project was initially conceived on Figma, a design platform, enabling our design team to create a user interface. Following this design phase, our experienced developers took over, using the Vue.js framework. Development involved fundamental web languages: JavaScript, CSS and HTML. JavaScript made the interface dynamic for smooth user interaction, CSS applied the detailed visual design conceived on Figma, and HTML structured the application's content. This combination resulted in an application, showcasing Vue.js's effectiveness in application development. Our intervention was the "Changing" application, which was a scrollytelling that, in its two versions (food and pandemic), explained why and how public health guidelines are being changed. The main purpose of the "Changing" application is to explain the reasons for ongoing changes in public health guidelines, using COVID-19 and nutrition as examples.

Study Type

INTERVENTIONAL

Allocation

RANDOMIZED

Purpose

HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH

Masking

DOUBLE

Enrollment

525

Conditions

Interventions

Changing (version: pandemic)BEHAVIORAL

The application explains that, faced with a complex situation such as a pandemic, decision-makers have to navigate through uncertainty, often without knowing exactly how the situation will evolve. Scientific research guides their choices, but early studies can sometimes prove inaccurate and require adjustments. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, some initial studies showed that certain drugs could help, but more rigorous research showed that they were not effective. Over time, accumulated knowledge enables us to better understand the situation and make informed decisions. Lessons learned from past crises help to better prepare for future complex situations.

Changing (version: nutrition)BEHAVIORAL

The intervention discusses the evolving nature of scientific research on diet and health. It explains how initial studies can suggest one thing, only for later studies to offer new insights or clarify previous findings. For example, while early research linked high fat intake with heart disease, more recent studies have shown that some fats, like those in nuts, avocados, and oily fish, are actually beneficial. It emphasizes that science often advances gradually, and rigorous, long-term studies help understanding. It also points out that health recommendations are influenced by multiple factors, and over time, accumulated knowledge enables us to better understand the situation and make informed decisions.

Eligibility

Sex: ALLMin age: 18 YearsHealthy volunteers:

Medical Language ↔ Plain English

Inclusion Criteria: * We will recruit participants who are aged 18 years or older. They will be able to provide written informed consent, and be able to read and understand French or English. Additionally, they should be able to use a computer. Exclusion Criteria: * We will exclude participants who are younger than 18 years old, unable to provide written informed consent, unable to read or understand French or English, or unable to use a computer.

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

Anti-intellectualism

Anti-intellectualism can be defined as "the refusal to recognize the pre-eminence of intelligence and the value of the sciences". Richard Hofstadter (1963) described anti-intellectualism generally as " a resentment and distrust of the things of the mind and those who represent it" (Hofstadter 1966). This sentiment is captured through a set of six items measuring attitudes towards various authoritative figures and institutions, including medical doctors, scientists, economists , teachers, expert and the Public Health Agency of Canada (Merkley and Loewen 2021). These attitudes are typically assessed using a Likert scale, a widely used semantic rating system in surveys that offers respondents a nuanced range of responses (typically 5 or 7 options) to gauge their perceptions, attitudes, and opinions accurately. Unlike binary "Yes" or "No" responses, this scale allows for a more detailed understanding of how individuals perceive and intercept the issues under investigation.

Time frame: Immediately after intervention

Secondary Outcomes

Knowledge-changing

This variable measured individuals perceptions and beliefs concerning various aspects of scientific knowledge and its role in public health decisions. Items addressed the relationship between scientific discoveries, political decisions and the evolution of knowledge. It is a discrete quantitative variable whose score ranges from 0 to 10, with the answers to the ten questions being true=1 or false=0.