Amid increasing adolescents’ immersion in media information and their vulnerability to mis/disinformation and the screen time negative health correlates, competences of critical thinking about health gains in significance. The Claim Evaluation Tools (CET) assess the understanding of claims about treatment effects and enable critical health literacy measurement in different populations. It has not been adapted and tested in Central Europe before.

The process of cultural adaptation covered three phases: translation and cultural adaptation, testing and psychometric analysis. We used Classical Test Theory and Rasch analysis to verify the validity and reliability of the Polish version of the CET. Additionally, we tested known-group and convergent validity.

The pilot test was conducted on a pupils sample from eight purposefully selected schools in Southern Poland, and the final version of the tool has been tested on a national study sample of pupils of primary schools randomly selected from all Polish regions.

We collected the data from a national sample of 2242 pupils aged 12 to 15 years, attending sixth to eighth grades, from 42 primary schools.

We applied some changes to the multiple-choice questions (MCQ) scenarios and wording of some of the options based on the expert’s opinions. We validated 24 MCQs reflecting 12 claims about treatment effects (2 MCQs per claim). The psychometric properties of the Polish version of the tool are satisfying.

The Polish version of the CET can be applied to measure critical health literacy among 12- to 15-year-old adolescents as well as to evaluate educational interventions promoting the understanding of healthcare claims in Poland.

VALTIVE1 is a multi-centre, single-arm, non-interventional biomarker study for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Plasma samples (Tie2 concentration) are collected to detect vascular control in tumours during standard treatment with chemotherapy and bevacizumab. This qualitative study embedded in VALTIVE1 aimed to assess the acceptability and feasibility of a potential VALTIVE2 trial. It explored the participants’ perceptions of the study and treatments and how they might feel if bevacizumab were discontinued based on the results from the biomarker test.

This qualitative study used semi-structured telephone interviews, which were analysed using deductive and inductive thematic analysis.

Cancer treatment sites in the UK.

Participants recruited to VALTIVE1 were invited to take part in qualitative interviews. 11 female participants took part from four clinical sites.

Participants reported that they experienced side effects attributed to bevacizumab, including stiffness, pain, fatigue, nose bleeds and muscle aches. Participants felt that combining chemotherapy and bevacizumab may have increased the severity of the side effects they experienced. Most participants felt that it was acceptable, if not preferable, to be allocated to a group in a future VALTIVE2 study where bevacizumab may be discontinued according to the results from the biomarker test. A clear preference of participants was to be informed of the biomarker test results, health status and treatment side effects.

A future trial should consider ensuring all participants have access to test results, as participants indicated a preference to know whether bevacizumab was working and to discontinue bevacizumab if it had not prevented tumour growth based on the biomarker results. Comprehensive and ongoing information and support regarding treatment side effects should be provided to all participants throughout their cancer pathways and trials.

NCT04523116.