1
|
Lorenc T, Stokes G, Fulbright H, Sutcliffe K, Sowden A. Communicating cardiovascular risk: Systematic review of qualitative evidence. PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING 2024; 123:108231. [PMID: 38471312 DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108231] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/19/2023] [Revised: 02/19/2024] [Accepted: 02/26/2024] [Indexed: 03/14/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Cardiovascular risk prediction models are widely used to help individuals understand risk and make decisions. METHODS Systematic review of qualitative evidence. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL. We included English-language qualitative studies on the communication of cardiovascular risk. We assessed study quality using Hawker et al.'s tool and synthesised data thematically. RESULTS Thirty-seven studies were included. Many patients think that risk scores are of limited practical value. Other sources of information feed into informal estimates of risk, which may lead patients to reject the results of clinical risk assessment when the two conflict. Clinicians identify a number of barriers to risk communication, including patients' limited understanding of risk and excessive anxiety. They use a range of strategies for adapting risk communication. Both clinicians and individuals express specific preferences for risk communication formats. DISCUSSION Ways of communicating risk that provide some comparison or reference point seem more promising. The broader context of communication around risk may be more important than the risk scoring instrument. Risk communication interventions, in practice, may be more about appeals to emotion than a rationalistic model of decision-making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Theo Lorenc
- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK.
| | - Gillian Stokes
- EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - Helen Fulbright
- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK
| | - Katy Sutcliffe
- EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - Amanda Sowden
- Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Duddy C, Gadsby E, Hibberd V, Krska J, Wong G. What happens after an NHS Health Check? A survey and realist review. HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE DELIVERY RESEARCH 2023; 11:1-133. [PMID: 37830173 DOI: 10.3310/rgth4127] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/14/2023]
Abstract
Background The National Health Service Health Check in England aims to provide adults aged 40 to 74 with an assessment of their risk of developing cardiovascular disease and to offer advice to help manage and reduce this risk. The programme is commissioned by local authorities and delivered by a range of providers in different settings, although primarily in general practices. This project focused on variation in the advice, onward referrals and prescriptions offered to attendees following their health check. Objectives (1) Map recent programme delivery across England via a survey of local authorities; (2) conduct a realist review to enable understanding of how the National Health Service Health Check programme works in different settings, for different groups; (3) provide recommendations to improve delivery. Design Survey of local authorities and realist review of the literature. Review methods Realist review is a theory-driven, interpretive approach to evidence synthesis that seeks to explain why, when and for whom outcomes occur. We gathered published research and grey literature (including local evaluation documents and conference materials) via searching and supplementary methods. Extracted data were synthesised using a realist logic of analysis to develop an understanding of important contexts that affect the delivery of National Health Service Health Checks, and underlying mechanisms that produce outcomes related to our project focus. Results Our findings highlight the variation in National Health Service Health Check delivery models across England. Commissioners, providers and attendees understand the programme's purpose in different ways. When understood primarily as an opportunity to screen for disease, responsibility for delivery and outcomes rests with primary care, and there is an emphasis on volume of checks delivered, gathering essential data and communicating risk. When understood as an opportunity to prompt and support behaviour change, more emphasis is placed on delivery of advice and referrals to 'lifestyle services'. Practical constraints limit what can be delivered within the programme's remit. Public health funding restricts delivery options and links with onward services, while providers may struggle to deliver effective checks when faced with competing priorities. Attendees' responses to the programme are affected by features of delivery models and the constraints they face within their own lives. Limitations Survey response rate lower than anticipated; review findings limited by the availability and quality of the literature. Conclusions and implications The purpose and remit of the National Health Service Health Check programme should be clarified, considering prevailing attitudes about its value (especially among providers) and what can be delivered within existing resources. Some variation in delivery is likely to be appropriate to meet local population needs, but lack of clarity for the programme contributes to a 'postcode lottery' effect in the support offered to attendees after a check. Our findings raise important questions about whether the programme itself and services that it may feed into are adequately resourced to achieve positive outcomes for attendees, and whether current delivery models may produce inequitable outcomes. Future work Policy-makers and commissioners should consider the implications of the findings of this project; future research should address the relative scarcity of studies focused on the end of the National Health Service Health Check pathway. Study registration PROSPERO registration CRD42020163822. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme (NIHR129209).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire Duddy
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Erica Gadsby
- Centre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK
| | - Vivienne Hibberd
- Public Involvement in Pharmacy Studies Group, Medway School of Pharmacy, Universities of Greenwich and Kent, Chatham Maritime, UK
| | - Janet Krska
- Medway School of Pharmacy, Universities of Greenwich and Kent, Chatham Maritime, UK
| | - Geoff Wong
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Atkins L, Stefanidou C, Chadborn T, Thompson K, Michie S, Lorencatto F. Influences on NHS Health Check behaviours: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 2020; 20:1359. [PMID: 32938432 PMCID: PMC7495879 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-020-09365-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2020] [Accepted: 08/09/2020] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background National Health Service Health Checks were introduced in 2009 to reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) risks and events. Since then, national evaluations have highlighted the need to maximise the programme’s impact by improving coverage and outputs. To address these challenges it is important to understand the extent to which positive behaviours are influenced across the NHS Health Check pathway and encourage the promotion or minimisation of behavioural facilitators and barriers respectively. This study applied behavioural science frameworks to: i) identify behaviours and actors relevant to uptake, delivery and follow up of NHS Health Checks and influences on these behaviours and; ii) signpost to example intervention content. Methods A systematic review of studies reporting behaviours related to NHS Health Check-related behaviours of patients, health care professionals (HCPs) and commissioners. Influences on behaviours were coded using theory-based models: COM-B and Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Potential intervention types and behaviour change techniques (BCTs) were suggested to target key influences. Results We identified 37 studies reporting nine behaviours and influences for eight of these. The most frequently identified influences were physical opportunity including HCPs having space and time to deliver NHS Health Checks and patients having money to adhere to recommendations to change diet and physical activity. Other key influences were motivational, such as beliefs about consequences about the value of NHS Health Checks and behaviour change, and social, such as influences of others on behaviour change. The following techniques are suggested for websites or smartphone apps: Adding objects to the environment, e.g. provide HCPs with electronic schedules to guide timely delivery of Health Checks to target physical opportunity, Social support (unspecified), e.g. include text suggesting patients to ask a colleague to agree in advance to join them in taking the ‘healthy option’ lunch at work; Information about health consequences, e.g. quotes and/or videos from patients talking about the health benefits of changes they have made. Conclusions Through the application of behavioural science we identified key behaviours and their influences which informed recommendations for intervention content. To ascertain the extent to which this reflects existing interventions we recommend a review of relevant evidence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lou Atkins
- Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, WC1N 3AZ, London, UK.
| | | | - Tim Chadborn
- Public Health England Behavioural Insights, London, UK
| | | | - Susan Michie
- Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, WC1N 3AZ, London, UK
| | - Fabi Lorencatto
- Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, WC1N 3AZ, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Knight EP, Slebodnik M, Pinder C, DeVon HA. Communicating acute coronary syndrome risk to women in primary care: A scoping review of the literature. PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING 2019; 102:2156-2161. [PMID: 31326246 DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2019.07.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2019] [Revised: 07/05/2019] [Accepted: 07/10/2019] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Delay from symptom onset to hospital arrival drives poor outcomes in acute coronary syndrome (ACS), particularly for women. Primary care clinicians can discuss ACS with high-risk women, potentially reducing delay. We conducted a scoping review to assess what is known about ACS risk communication to women in primary care. METHODS We used Arksey and O'Malley's framework. The PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase databases were searched for relevant articles from inception through September, 2018. No restrictions on study methodology were applied. At least two reviewers assessed each article. Articles addressing risk communication, coronary heart disease, and ACS, related to primary care settings, and including women were retained. RESULTS Eleven articles met inclusion criteria. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk communication is common in primary care; however, ACS symptoms are rarely discussed. Structured risk calculators are used to frame discussions. Communication styles include patient-centered discussions, paternalistic orders, and "scare tactics;" no single style is more effective. Analysis of gender differences in risk communication is extremely limited. CONCLUSION There is scant evidence that primary care clinicians communicate effectively about ACS risk, symptoms, and appropriate symptom response. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Interventions are needed to improve communication about ACS to at-risk women in the primary care setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth P Knight
- Oregon Health & Science University School of Nursing, Portland, OR, USA.
| | | | - Clare Pinder
- University of Arizona College of Nursing, Tucson, AZ, USA
| | - Holli A DeVon
- University of Illinois at Chicago College of Nursing, Chicago, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Simons G, Stack RJ, Stoffer-Marx M, Englbrecht M, Mosor E, Buckley CD, Kumar K, Hansson M, Hueber A, Stamm T, Falahee M, Raza K. Perceptions of first-degree relatives of patients with rheumatoid arthritis about lifestyle modifications and pharmacological interventions to reduce the risk of rheumatoid arthritis development: a qualitative interview study. BMC Rheumatol 2018; 2:31. [PMID: 30886981 PMCID: PMC6390593 DOI: 10.1186/s41927-018-0038-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2018] [Accepted: 09/24/2018] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is increasing interest in the identification of people at risk of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to monitor the emergence of early symptoms (and thus allow early therapy), offer lifestyle advice to reduce the impact of environmental risk factors and potentially offer preventive pharmacological treatment for those at high risk. Close biological relatives of people with RA are at an increased risk of developing RA and are therefore potential candidates for research studies, screening initiatives and preventive interventions. To ensure the success of approaches of this kind, a greater understanding of the perceptions of this group relating to preventive measures is needed. METHODS Twenty-four first-degree relatives of patients with an existing diagnosis of RA from the UK, three from Germany and seven from Austria (age: 21-67 years) took part in semi-structured interviews exploring their perceptions of RA risk, preventive medicine and lifestyle changes to reduce RA risk. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS Many first-degree relatives indicated that they anticipated being happy to make lifestyle changes such as losing weight or changing their diet to modify their risk of developing RA. Participants further indicated that in order to make any lifestyle changes it would be useful to know their personal risk of developing RA. Others implied they would not contemplate making lifestyle changes, including stopping smoking, unless this would significantly reduce or eliminate their risk of developing RA. Many first-degree relatives had more negative perceptions about taking preventive medication to reduce their risk of RA, and listed concerns about potential side effects as one of the reasons for not wanting to take preventive medicines. Others would be more willing to consider drug interventions although some indicated that they would wish to wait until symptoms developed. CONCLUSIONS Information targeted at those considered to be at risk of RA should contain information about RA, the extent to which risk can be quantified at an individual level and how risk levels may differ depending on whether early symptoms are present. The benefits (and risks) of lifestyle changes and pharmacological interventions as potential preventive measures should be clearly described.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gwenda Simons
- Institute for Inflammation and Aging, Rheumatology Research Group, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT UK
| | - Rebecca J Stack
- Institute for Inflammation and Aging, Rheumatology Research Group, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT UK
- Department of Psychology, Nottingham Trent University, 50 Shakespeare St, Nottingham, NG1 4FQ UK
| | - Michaela Stoffer-Marx
- Section for Outcomes Research, Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics, and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, BT88/E 031090 Vienna, Austria
- University of Applied Sciences FH Campus Wien, Vienna, 1100 Austria
| | - Matthias Englbrecht
- Department of Internal Medicine 3, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Internistisches Zentrum (INZ), Ulmenweg 18, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
| | - Erika Mosor
- Section for Outcomes Research, Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics, and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, BT88/E 031090 Vienna, Austria
- Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Christopher D Buckley
- Institute for Inflammation and Aging, Rheumatology Research Group, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT UK
- Department of Rheumatology, Sandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK
- Arthritis Research UK Rheumatoid Arthritis Pathogenesis Centre of Excellence, MRC Arthritis Research UK Centre for Musculoskeletal Ageing Research and NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Kanta Kumar
- The Institute of Clinical Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT UK
- Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL UK
| | - Mats Hansson
- Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Box 564, SE-751 22 Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Axel Hueber
- Department of Internal Medicine 3, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Internistisches Zentrum (INZ), Ulmenweg 18, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
| | - Tanja Stamm
- Section for Outcomes Research, Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics, and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, BT88/E 031090 Vienna, Austria
- Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Marie Falahee
- Institute for Inflammation and Aging, Rheumatology Research Group, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT UK
| | - Karim Raza
- Institute for Inflammation and Aging, Rheumatology Research Group, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT UK
- Department of Rheumatology, Sandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK
- Arthritis Research UK Rheumatoid Arthritis Pathogenesis Centre of Excellence, MRC Arthritis Research UK Centre for Musculoskeletal Ageing Research and NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Kumar K, Peters S, Barton A. Rheumatoid arthritis patient perceptions on the value of predictive testing for treatments: a qualitative study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2016; 17:460. [PMID: 27825322 PMCID: PMC5101686 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-016-1319-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/08/2016] [Accepted: 11/01/2016] [Indexed: 01/18/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a long term condition that requires early treatment to control symptoms and improve long-term outcomes. Lack of response to RA treatments is not only a waste of healthcare resources, but also causes disability and distress to patients. Identifying biomarkers predictive of treatment response offers an opportunity to improve clinical decisions about which treatment to recommend in patients and could ultimately lead to better patient outcomes. The aim of this study was to explore the understanding of and factors affecting Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) patients’ decisions around predictive treatment testing. Methods A qualitative study was conducted with a purposive sample of 16 patients with RA from three major UK cities. Four focus groups explored patient perceptions of the use of biomarker tests to predict response to treatments. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis by three researchers. Results Data were organised within three interlinking themes: [1] Perceptions of predictive tests and patient preference of tests; [2] Utility of the test to manage expectations; [3] The influence of the disease duration on take up of predictive testing. During consultations for predictive testing, patients felt they would need, first, careful explanations detailing the consequences of untreated RA and delayed treatment response and, second, support to balance the risks of tests, which might be invasive and/or only moderately accurate, with the potential benefits of better management of symptoms. Conclusions This study provides important insights into predictive testing. Besides supporting clinical decision making, the development of predictive testing in RA is largely supported by patients. Developing strategies which communicate risk information about predictive testing effectively while reducing the psychological burden associated with this information will be essential to maximise uptake.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kanta Kumar
- School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. .,Arthritis Research UK Centre for Genetics and Genomics Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Institution of Inflammation and Repair, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
| | - Sarah Peters
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, School of Health Sciences, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| | - Anne Barton
- Arthritis Research UK Centre for Genetics and Genomics Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Institution of Inflammation and Repair, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.,NIHR Manchester Musculoskeletal BRU, Central Manchester Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Manchester, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|