Uptake of NHS health check: issues in monitoring

The usage of data in NHS primary care commissioning: a realist review

BACKGROUND

Primary care has been described as the 'bedrock' of the National Health Service (NHS) accounting for approximately 90% of patient contacts but is facing significant challenges. Against a backdrop of a rapidly ageing population with increasingly complex health challenges, policy-makers have encouraged primary care commissioners to increase the usage of data when making commissioning decisions. Purported benefits include cost savings and improved population health. However, research on evidence-based commissioning has concluded that commissioners work in complex environments and that closer attention should be paid to the interplay of contextual factors and evidence use. The aim of this review was to understand how and why primary care commissioners use data to inform their decision making, what outcomes this leads to, and understand what factors or contexts promote and inhibit their usage of data.

METHODS

We developed initial programme theory by identifying barriers and facilitators to using data to inform primary care commissioning based on the findings of an exploratory literature search and discussions with programme implementers. We then located a range of diverse studies by searching seven databases as well as grey literature. Using a realist approach, which has an explanatory rather than a judgemental focus, we identified recurrent patterns of outcomes and their associated contexts and mechanisms related to data usage in primary care commissioning to form context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations. We then developed a revised and refined programme theory.

RESULTS

Ninety-two studies met the inclusion criteria, informing the development of 30 CMOs. Primary care commissioners work in complex and demanding environments, and the usage of data are promoted and inhibited by a wide range of contexts including specific commissioning activities, commissioners' perceptions and skillsets, their relationships with external providers of data (analysis), and the characteristics of data themselves. Data are used by commissioners not only as a source of evidence but also as a tool for stimulating commissioning improvements and as a warrant for convincing others about decisions commissioners wish to make. Despite being well-intentioned users of data, commissioners face considerable challenges when trying to use them, and have developed a range of strategies to deal with 'imperfect' data.

CONCLUSIONS

There are still considerable barriers to using data in certain contexts. Understanding and addressing these will be key in light of the government's ongoing commitments to using data to inform policy-making, as well as increasing integrated commissioning.

NHS Health Check programme: a protocol for a realist review

INTRODUCTION

The NHS Health Check aims to identify individuals at increased risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) among the adult population in England. The Health Check includes calculation of CVD risk and discussion of pharmacological and lifestyle approaches to manage risk, including referral to lifestyle support services. The programme is commissioned by Local Authorities (LAs) and is delivered by a range of different providers in different settings. There is significant variation in activity, with uptake ranging from 25% to 85% in different areas, and clear evidence of variation in implementation and delivery practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We aim to understand how the NHS Health Check programme works in different settings, for different groups, so that we can recommend improvements to maximise intended outcomes. To do so, we will undertake a realist review and a survey of LA public health teams. Our review will follow Pawson's five iterative stages: (1) locate existing theories, (2) search for evidence, (3) article selection, (4) extract and organise data and (5) synthesise evidence and draw conclusions. Our review will include documents describing local implementation alongside published research studies. We will recruit a stakeholder group (including Public Health England, commissioners and providers of Health Checks, plus members of the public and patients) to advise us throughout. Our survey will be sent to all 152 LAs in England to gather detailed information on programme delivery (including COVID-19-related changes) and available referral services. This will enable us to map delivery across England and relate these data to programme outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required for this review. For the survey, we have received approval from the University of Kent Research Ethics Committee. Our findings will be used to develop recommendations on tailoring, implementation and design strategies to improve delivery of the NHS Health Check in different settings, for different groups.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020163822.

Influences on NHS Health Check behaviours: a systematic review

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.

Randomised controlled trial comparing uptake of NHS Health Check in response to standard letters, risk-personalised letters and telephone invitations

Background

NHS Health Check is a primary prevention programme offering cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment to adults in England aged 40–74. Uptake remains a challenge and invitation method is a strong predictor of uptake. There is evidence of low uptake when using invitation letters. Telephone invitations might increase uptake, but are not widely used. We explored the potential to improve uptake through personalising letters to patient’s CVD risk, and to compare this with generic letters and telephone invitations.

Methods

HEalth Check TRial (HECTR) was a three-arm randomised controlled trial in nine general practices in Staffordshire (UK). Eligible patients were randomised to be invited to a NHS Health Check using one of three methods: standard letter (control); telephone invitation; letter personalised to the patient’s CVD risk. The primary outcome was attendance/non-attendance. Data were collected on a range of patient- and practice-level factors (e.g., patient socio-demographics, CVD risk, practice size, Health Checks outside usual working hours). Multi-level logistic regression estimated the marginal effects to explore whether invitation method predicted attendance. Invitation costs were collated from practices to estimate cost benefit.

Results

In total, 4614 patients were included in analysis (mean age 50.2 ± 8.0 yr.; 52.4% female). Compared with patients invited by standard letter (30.9%), uptake was significantly higher in those invited by telephone (47.6%, P < .001), but not personalised letter (31.3%, p = .812). In multi-level analysis, compared with the standard letter arm, likelihood of attendance was 18 percentage points higher in the telephone arm and 4 percentage points higher in the personalised letter arm. The effect of telephone calls appeared strongest in patients who were younger and had lower CVD risk. We estimated per 1000 patients invited, risk-personalised letters could result in 40 additional attended Health Checks (at no extra cost) and telephone invitations could result in 180 additional Health Checks at an additional cost of £240.

Conclusions

Telephone invitations should be advocated to address the substantial deficit between current and required levels of NHS uptake, and could be targeted at younger and lower CVD risk adults. Risk-personalised letters should be explored further in a larger sample of high risk individuals.

Trial registration

Registration number: ISRCTN15840751 date of registration: 24/10/2017.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-019-6540-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.