Experiences of patients and healthcare professionals of NHS cardiovascular health checks: a qualitative study

Communicating cardiovascular risk: Systematic review of qualitative evidence

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.

"They are saying it's high, but I think it's quite low": exploring cardiovascular disease risk communication in NHS health checks through video-stimulated recall interviews with patients - a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

NHS Health Check (NHSHC) is a national cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk identification and management programme. However, evidence suggests a limited understanding of the most used metric to communicate CVD risk with patients (10-year percentage risk). This study used novel application of video-stimulated recall interviews to understand patient perceptions and understanding of CVD risk following an NHSHC that used one of two different CVD risk calculators.

METHODS

Qualitative, semi-structured video-stimulated recall interviews were conducted with patients (n = 40) who had attended an NHSHC using either the QRISK2 10-year risk calculator (n = 19) or JBS3 lifetime CVD risk calculator (n = 21). Interviews were transcribed and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Analysis resulted in the development of four themes: variability in understanding, relief about personal risk, perceived changeability of CVD risk, and positive impact of visual displays. The first three themes were evident across the two patient groups, regardless of risk calculator; the latter related to JBS3 only. Patients felt relieved about their CVD risk, yet there were differences in understanding between calculators. Heart age within JBS3 prompted more accessible risk appraisal, yet mixed understanding was evident for both calculators. Event-free survival age also resulted in misunderstanding. QRISK2 patients tended to question the ability for CVD risk to change, while risk manipulation through JBS3 facilitated this understanding. Displaying information visually also appeared to enhance understanding.

CONCLUSIONS

Effective communication of CVD risk within NHSHC remains challenging, and lifetime risk metrics still lead to mixed levels of understanding in patients. However, visual presentation of information, alongside risk manipulation during NHSHCs can help to increase understanding and prompt risk-reducing lifestyle changes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN10443908. Registered 7th February 2017.

Reducing health inequalities through general practice: a realist review and action framework

Background

Socio-economic inequalities in health have been in the public agenda for decades. General practice has an influential role to play in mitigating the impact of inequalities especially regarding chronic conditions. At the moment, general practice is dealing with serious challenges in relation to workforce shortages, increasing workload and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to identify effective ways so that general practice can play its role in reducing health inequalities.

Objectives

We explored what types of interventions and aspects of routine care in general practice decrease or increase inequalities in health and care-related outcomes. We focused on cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We explored for whom these interventions and aspects of care work best, why, and in what circumstances. Our main objective was to synthesise this evidence into specific guidance for healthcare professionals and decision-makers about how best to achieve equitable general practice.

Design

Realist review.

Main outcome measures

Clinical or care-related outcomes by socio-economic group, or other PROGRESS-Plus criteria.

Review methods

Realist review based on Pawson's five steps: (1) locating existing theories, (2) searching for evidence, (3) selecting articles, (4) extracting and organising data and (5) synthesising the evidence.

Results

Three hundred and twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria and 159 of them were selected for the evidence synthesis. Evidence about the impact of general practice interventions on health inequalities is limited. To reduce health inequalities, general practice needs to be: • connected so that interventions are linked and coordinated across the sector; • intersectional to account for the fact that people's experience is affected by many of their characteristics; • flexible to meet patients' different needs and preferences; • inclusive so that it does not exclude people because of who they are; • community-centred so that people who receive care engage with its design and delivery. These qualities should inform action across four domains: structures like funding and workforce distribution, organisational culture, everyday regulated procedures involved in care delivery, interpersonal and community relationships.

Limitations

The reviewed evidence offers limited detail about the ways and the extent to which specific interventions increase or decrease inequalities in general practice. Therefore, we focused on the underpinning principles that were common across interventions to produce higher-level, transferrable conclusions about ways to achieve equitable care.

Conclusions

Inequalities in general practice result from complex processes across four different domains that include structures, ideas, regulated everyday procedures, and relationships among individuals and communities. To achieve equity, general practice needs to be connected, intersectional, flexible, inclusive and community-centred.

Future work

Future work should focus on how these five essential qualities can be better used to shape the organisational development of future general practice.

Study registration

This trial is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020217871.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130694) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 7. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Lipid Management in Primary Care for Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Populations in Northern England: A Qualitative Study

INTRODUCTION

People in low socioeconomic circumstances are more susceptible to dyslipidemia and cardiovascular disease than those living in more affluent populations. Limited healthcare access and low preventive care uptake widen health inequalities. Understanding how primary care can better serve socioeconomically disadvantaged communities is urgently needed.

AIM

To explore lipid management delivery in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas and identify barriers and enablers for lipid optimization for socioeconomically disadvantaged populations.

METHOD

Individual semi-structured remote interviews with clinicians, purposively recruited from primary care practices serving extremely socioeconomically disadvantaged communities in Northern England, UK, who were involved in the delivery and organization of lipid management. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically following framework analysis.

RESULTS

Fifteen interviews were undertaken. Five themes emerged: complex and multimorbid patients with competing priorities, limited access and follow-up to supporting services, being flexible and working beyond guidelines, high workload with inadequate staff support, and the need for care integrity and sustainable support.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study have been fed back to the delivery of the national program to improve cardiovascular health. Socioeconomically disadvantaged communities have complex health needs posing risks of multimorbidity but living with low health literacy, competing demands upon time, and financial constraints. Clinicians are willing to adapt services but a lack of guidance for care and funded services remains a significant barrier to targeted service delivery. Research is needed to inform the effectiveness and acceptability of interventions for lipid management tailored for those experiencing low socioeconomic disadvantage.

What happens after an NHS Health Check? A survey and realist review

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).

Reducing health inequalities through general practice

Although general practice can contribute to reducing health inequalities, existing evidence provides little guidance on how this reduction can be achieved. We reviewed interventions influencing health and care inequalities in general practice and developed an action framework for health professionals and decision makers. We conducted a realist review by searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for systematic reviews of interventions into health inequality in general practice. We then screened the studies in the included systematic reviews for those that reported their outcomes by socioeconomic status or other PROGRESS-Plus (Cochrane Equity Methods Group) categories. 159 studies were included in the evidence synthesis. Robust evidence on the effect of general practice on health inequalities is scarce. Focusing on common qualities of interventions, we found that to reduce health inequalities, general practice needs to be informed by five key principles: involving coordinated services across the system (ie, connected), accounting for differences within patient groups (ie, intersectional), making allowances for different patient needs and preferences (ie, flexible), integrating patient worldviews and cultural references (ie, inclusive), and engaging communities with service design and delivery (ie, community-centred). Future work should explore how these principles can inform the organisational development of general practice.

Facilitators of and Barriers to Lifestyle Support and eHealth Solutions: Interview Study Among Health Care Professionals Working in Cardiac Care

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) pose a significant health threat and reduce both people's life expectancy and quality of life. Healthy living is a key component in the effective prevention and treatment of CVD. However, health care professionals (HCPs) experience difficulties in supporting lifestyle changes among their patients. eHealth can provide a solution to these barriers.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to provide insights into the factors HCPs find important in the support of patients with CVD in the uptake of and adherence to a healthy lifestyle and the perceived facilitators of and barriers to using eHealth to provide lifestyle support to patients with CVD.

METHODS

In-depth interviews were conducted with 16 Dutch HCPs specializing in lifestyle support in cardiac care.

RESULTS

We identified 13 themes, of which the first 12 concerned lifestyle support in general and were related to intervention, patient, or health care. Throughout these themes, the use of eHealth reoccurred as a potential facilitator of or solution to barriers to lifestyle support. Our final theme specifically concerned barriers to the adoption and usability of eHealth.

CONCLUSIONS

HCPs do recognize the potential advantages of eHealth while experiencing barriers to using digital tools. Incorporating their needs and values in the development of lifestyle support programs, especially eHealth, could increase their use and lead to a more widespread adoption of eHealth into health care.

Facilitators and barriers to implementing lifestyle intervention programme to prevent cognitive decline

BACKGROUND

The Finnish Intervention Study to Prevent Cognitive Impairment and Disability is a randomized controlled trial that has tested the efficacy of a multidomain intervention targeting modifiable risk factors to prevent cognitive impairment/dementia. A combination of healthy diet, physical, social and cognitive activity, and management of cardiovascular risks was shown to be an effective model to promote brain health among older people. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore healthcare professionals' perceptions of facilitators and barriers to implementing this lifestyle programme into health care.

METHODS

Four semi-structured focus group interviews were conducted among healthcare professionals working in primary care and in non-governmental organizations (N=27). Participants were asked to discuss their perceptions of facilitators and barriers for implementing the multidomain intervention into clinical practice. Interviews were analyzed using content analysis.

RESULTS

Barriers and facilitators described by the healthcare professionals were related to infrastructure and resources, client's personal characteristics and the lifestyle intervention itself. These main categories included several sub-categories related to knowledge, motivation, resources, individualization and collaboration. The interviewees pointed out that more education on dementia prevention is needed, the work should be coordinated efficiently, resources to provide preventive health care should be adequate and multiprofessional collaboration is needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Transferring a lifestyle intervention from a trial-setting to real life requires knowledge about the factors that influence effective implementation. Identifying drivers and constraints of successful implementation helps to design and tailor future prevention programmes, increases motivation and adherence and supports system change.

Communicating Test Results from a General Health Check: Preferences from a Discrete Choice Experiment Survey

BACKGROUND

Health checks can detect risk factors and initiate prevention of cardiovascular diseases but there is no consensus on how to communicate the results. The aim of this study was to investigate the preferences of the general population for communicating health check results.

METHODS

A randomly selected sample of the Swedish population aged 40-70 years completed a discrete choice experiment survey that included questions on sociodemographics, lifestyle and health and 15 choice questions consisting of six attributes (written results, notification method, consultation time, waiting time, lifestyle recommendation and cost). Data were analyzed with a latent class analysis (LCA). Relative importance of the attributes and predicted uptake for several scenarios were estimated.

RESULTS

In the analysis, 432 individuals were included (response rate 29.6%). A three-class LCA model best fit the data. Cost was the most important attribute in all classes. Preferences heterogeneity was found for the other attributes; in Class 1, receiving consultation time and the written results were important, respondents in Class 2 dominated on costs and respondents in Class 3 found consultation time, waiting time and lifestyle recommendations to be important. Health literate respondents were more likely to belong to Class 3. The predicted uptake rates ranged from 7 to 88% for different health checks with large differences across the classes.

CONCLUSION

Cost was most important when deciding whether to participate in a health check. Although cost was the most important factor, it is not sufficient to offer health checks free-of-charge if other requirements regarding how the test results are communicated are not in place; participants need to be able to understand their results.

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.

Knowledge and attitude of healthcare professionals to frailty screening in primary care: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Frailty is an increasingly common condition in which physiological decline as a result of accumulated deficits renders older people more vulnerable to adverse outcomes. An increasing range of frailty screening programmes have been introduced in primary care to identify frail older people in order to deliver appropriate interventions. However, limited information on the knowledge and attitude of healthcare professionals (HCPs) with respect to frailty screening is known. The aim of this systematic review is to provide evidence on the knowledge and attitude of HCP in terms of frailty screening, and potentially identify barriers and facilitators to frailty screening to improve implementation of frailty screening in primary care.

METHODS/DESIGN

A systematic review of qualitative research will be conducted. Databases searched will be MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO and Web of Science from January 2001 to August 2019. Methods will be reported based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Population, interest, context and study design methodology was used to develop inclusion and exclusion criteria with HCPs as population, frailty screening as interest and knowledge or attitude of HCPs to frailty screening as context. Studies with a qualitative methodology or a mixed-method design where the qualitative component is analysed separately will also be included. Quality appraisal will be carried out using the Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tool for qualitative studies. Data will be extracted from each selected study with thematic framework analysis used to synthesise findings.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This systematic review does not require ethical approval as primary data will not be collected. The findings will be disseminated at conferences and in a relevant academic journal. This review will assist HCPs and relevant stakeholders to tackle the challenges of frailty screening in primary care.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019159007.

Engagement with advice to reduce cardiovascular risk following a health check programme: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The success of a cardiovascular health check programme depends not only on the identification of individuals at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) but also on reducing CVD risk. We examined factors that might influence engagement and adherence to lifestyle change interventions and medication amongst people recently assessed at medium or high risk of CVD (>10% in the next 10 years).

METHOD

Qualitative study using individual semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using the Framework method.

RESULTS

Twenty-two participants (12 men, 10 women) were included in the study. Four broad themes are described: (a) the meaning of 'risk', (b) experiences with medication, (c) attempts at lifestyle change, and (d) perceived enablers to longer-term change. The experience of having a health check was mostly positive and reassuring. Although participants may not have understood precisely what their CVD risk meant, many reported efforts to make lifestyle changes and take medications to reduce their risk. Individual's experience with medications was influenced by family, friends and the media. Lifestyle change services and family and friends support facilitated longer-term behaviour change.

CONCLUSIONS

People generally appear to respond positively to having a CVD health check and report being motivated towards behaviour change. Some individuals at higher risk may need clearer information about the health check and the implications of being at risk of CVD. Concerns over medication use may need to be addressed in order to improve adherence. Strategies are required to facilitate engagement and promote longer-term maintenance with lifestyle changes amongst high-risk individuals.

Evaluating the effectiveness of the NHS Health Check programme in South England: a quasi-randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate uptake, risk factor detection and management from the National Health Service (NHS) Health Check (HC).

DESIGN

This is a quasi-randomised controlled trial where participants were allocated to five cohorts based on birth year. Four cohorts were invited for an NHS HC between April 2011 and March 2015.

SETTING

151 general practices in Hampshire, England, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

366 005 participants born 1 April 1940-31 March 1976 eligible for an NHS HC.

INTERVENTION

NHS HC invitation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

HC attendance and absolute percentage changes and ORs of (1) detecting cardiovascular disease (CVD) 10-year risk >10% and >20%, smokers, and total cholesterol (TC) >5.5 mmol/L and >7.5 mmol/L; (2) diagnosing hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease (CKD) and atrial fibrillation (AF); and (3) new interventions with statins, antihypertensives, antiglycaemics and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).

RESULTS

HC attendance rose from 12% to 30% between 2011/2012 and 2014/2015 (p<0.001). HC invitation increased detection of CVD risk >10% (2.0%-3.6, p<0.001) and >20% (0.1%-0.6%, p<0.001-0.392), TC >5.5 mmol/L (4.1%-7.0%, p<0.001) and >7.5 mmol/L (0.3%-0.4% p<0.001), hypertension (0.3%-0.6%, p<0.001-0.003), and interventions with statins (0.2%-0.9%, p<0.001-0.017) and antihypertensives (0.1%-0.6%, p<0.001-0.205). There were no consistent differences in detection of smokers, NRT, or diabetes, AF or CKD. Multivariate analyses showed associations between HC invitation and detecting CVD risk >10% (OR 8.01, 95% CI 7.34 to 8.73) and >20% (5.86, 4.83 to 7.10), TC >5.5 mmol/L (3.72, 3.57 to 3.89) and >7.5 mmol/L (2.89, 2.46 to 3.38), and diagnoses of hypertension (1.33, 1.20 to 1.47) and diabetes (1.34, 1.12 to 1.61). OR of CVD risk >10% plus statin and >20% plus statin, respectively, was 2.90 (2.36 to 3.57) and 2.60 (1.92 to 3.52), and for hypertension plus antihypertensive was 1.33 (1.18 to 1.50). There were no associations with AF, CKD, antiglycaemics or NRT. Detection of several risk factors varied inversely by deprivation.

CONCLUSIONS

HC invitation increased detection of cardiovascular risk factors, but corresponding increases in evidence-based interventions were modest.

Improving cardiovascular disease risk communication in NHS Health Checks: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

The NHS Health Check programme is a public screening and prevention initiative in England to detect early signs of cardiovascular ill health among healthy adults. We aimed to explore patient perspectives and experiences of a personalised Risk Report designed to improve cardiovascular risk communication in the NHS Health Check.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This is a qualitative study with NHS Health Check attendees in three general practices in the London Borough of Newham.

INTERVENTION AND PARTICIPANTS

A personalised Risk Report for the NHS Health Check was developed to improve communication of results and advice. The Risk Report was embedded in the electronic health record, printed with auto-filled results and used as a discussion aid during the NHS Health Check, and was a take-home record of information and advice on risk reduction for the attendees. 18 purposively sampled socially diverse participants took part in semistructured interviews, which were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

For most participants, the NHS Health Check was an opportunity for reassurance and assessment, and the Risk Report was an enduring record that supported risk understanding, with impact beyond the individual. For a minority, ambivalence towards the Risk Report occurred in the context of attending for other reasons, and risk and lifestyle advice were not internalised or acted on.

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrate the potential of a personalised Risk Report as a useful intervention in NHS Health Checks for enhancing patient understanding of cardiovascular risk and strategies for risk reduction. Also highlighted are the challenges that must be overcome to ensure transferability of these benefits to diverse patient groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02486913.

Exploring research participants' perceptions of cardiovascular risk information-Room for improvement and empowerment

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to explore research participants' (adults, age 50-65) perceptions of receiving cardiovascular risk information.

METHODS

Five focus group interviews (N = 31) were performed with research participants aged 50-65 who participated in the Swedish CArdioPulmonary BioImage Study (SCAPIS). The interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

The categories; the complexity of cardiovascular risk; insufficient presentation of test result; emotional responses; and health examinations provides confirmation, emerged. The test results were written in medical terms and lacked recommendations for further action which made it difficult for lay people to understand and use, and for some, also caused unnecessary worry.

CONCLUSION

There was inadequate guidance concerning the implications of the test results, especially for participants without clinical findings. In order to allow research participants to obtain better cognitive and behavioral control, improvements are needed with regard to how personal risk information is communicated in research projects connected to health services.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The participants largely relied on physical signs when assessing their own cardiovascular risk. Health examinations are crucial for helping to add nuance to individuals' risk perceptions. For personal health information to have any real value for individuals, it must be designed from a user perspective.

Experiences from individuals with increased cardiovascular risk participating in a one-year lifestyle program

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the current study was to describe the participants' experiences of a structured lifestyle program for persons with high cardiovascular risk.

METHOD

Sixteen participants with high cardiovascular risk participating in a one-year structured lifestyle intervention program were interviewed regarding their experiences of the program. The interviews were analyzed using content analyses.

RESULTS

The participants' (mean age 58 ± 9) experiences were categorized into three categories: "How to know," based on the participants' experience from both individual counselling and group sessions with tools to strengthen self-care; "Staff who know how," based on experience from the meeting with, and the importance of, competent health professionals; "Why feedback is essential," based on the participants' experience and effects of person-centered feedback. Several factors were deemed important in the structure of the program: an individual visit with shared goal setting, a group education session with interactive discussion, a competent, educated, and respectful health professional who gives continuous feedback, and the right tools to support self-care at home between visits.

CONCLUSION

Individuals participating in a structured lifestyle program experienced several factors as important: an individual visit with shared goal setting, a group education session with interactive discussion, a competent, educated, and respectful healthcare professional who gives continuous feedback, and the right tools to support self-care at home between visits.

Community-Engaged Lifestyle Medicine as a Framework for Health Equity: Principles for Lifestyle Medicine in Low-Resource Settings

Lifestyle risk factors, including tobacco and alcohol use, poor nutrition, and inactivity, comprise the leading actual causes of death and disproportionately affect diverse, lower-income and vulnerable populations. Fundamentally influenced by social determinants of health (including poverty, social linkages, food access, and built environment), these "unhealthy lifestyle" exposures perpetuate and sustain disparities in health outcomes, stealing years of healthy and productive life for minority, vulnerable groups. The authors call for implementation of a health equity framework within lifestyle medicine (LM). Community-engaged lifestyle medicine (CELM) is an evidence-based, participatory framework capable of addressing health disparities through LM, targeting health equity in addition to better health. CELM was developed in 2015 by the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley (UTRGV) Preventive Medicine Residency program to address lifestyle-related health disparities within marginalized border communities. The framework includes the following evidence-based principles: community engagement, cultural competency, and application of multilevel and intersectoral approaches. The rationale for each of these components and the growth of CELM within the American College of Lifestyle Medicine is described. Finally, illustrative examples are provided for how CELM can be instituted at micro and macro levels by LM practitioners.

Patient experiences of telephone outreach to enhance uptake of NHS Health Checks in more deprived communities and minority ethnic groups: A qualitative interview study

Background

The NHS Health Checks preventative programme aims to reduce cardiovascular morbidity across England. To improve equity in uptake, telephone outreach was developed in Bristol, involving community workers telephoning patients amongst communities potentially at higher risk of cardiovascular disease and/or less likely to take up a written invitation, to engage them with NHS Health Checks. Where possible, caller cultural background/main language is matched with that of the patient called. The call includes an invitation to book an NHS Health Check appointment, lifestyle questions from the Health Check, and signposting to lifestyle services.

Objective

To explore the experiences of patients who received an outreach call.

Design/Setting/Participants

Thematic analysis of semi‐structured interviews with 24 patients (15 female), from seven primary care practices, who had received an outreach call.

Results

The call increased participants’ understanding of NHS Health Checks and overcame anticipated difficulties with making an appointment. Half reported that they would not have booked if only invited by letter. The cultural identity/language skills of the caller were important in facilitating the interaction for some who might otherwise encounter language or cultural barriers. The inclusion of lifestyle questions and signposting prompted a minority to make lifestyle changes.

Conclusions

Participants valued easily generalizable aspects of the intervention—a telephone invitation with ability to book during the call—and reported that it prompted acceptance of an NHS Health Check. A caller who shared their main language/cultural background was important for a minority of participants, and improved targeting of this would be beneficial.

Participants' expectations and experiences with periodic health examinations in Austria - a qualitative study

Background

The engagement of citizens in the development of evidence-based screening programs is internationally supported. The aim of our research was to explore the motivations and reasons of adult citizens in Austria for attending periodic health examinations (PHE) as well as their satisfaction with the way PHE are organized.

Methods

We conducted three focus groups with a random sample of previous attenders of PHE. Participants were stratified by age, gender, and education. The discussions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a thematic analysis approach.

Results

Main motivations of attenders (n = 30) were to detect diseases early, to prevent suffering, and to live a long, healthy life. They believed that PHE work as an incentive of health behavior change. As possible reasons not to attend PHE, participants mentioned lack of awareness, time constraints, unpleasant prior experiences, and fear of harm or negative consequences. They wanted the range of examinations to be selected based on individual risks and to be more comprehensive. Some participants expressed frustration with the lack of time doctors dedicated to the examination or discussion of the results. Throughout the discussion, participants realized there is a great diversity among doctors in the quality of health examinations and how content is delivered.

Conclusion

The study showed that attenders of PHE have high expectations concerning the beneficial outcomes of PHE. They requested a comprehensive and individualized program that does not reflect the scientific evidence from effectiveness studies of PHE. These findings indicate serious shortcomings in the communication of benefits and harms of screening interventions and highlight the need for a more proactive communication about aims and content of the program.

Implementing multiple health behaviour change interventions for cardiovascular risk reduction in primary care: a qualitative study

Background

The implementation of multiple health behaviour change interventions for cardiovascular risk reduction in primary care is suboptimal. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing multiple health behaviour change interventions for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reduction in primary care.

Methods

Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. Interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of healthcare professionals working in the implementation of the NHS Health Check programme in London. Data were analysed using the Framework method.

Results

Thirty participants were recruited including ten general practitioners, ten practice nurses, seven healthcare assistants and three practice managers from 23 practices. Qualitative analysis identified three main themes: healthcare professionals’ conceptualising health behaviour change; delivering multiple health behaviour change interventions in primary care; and delivering the health check programme. Healthcare professionals generally recognised the importance of health behaviour change for CVD risk reduction but were more sceptical about the potential for successful intervention through primary care. Participants identified the difficulty of sustained behaviour change for patients, the lack of evidence for effective interventions and limited access to appropriate resources in primary care as barriers. Discussing changing multiple health behaviours was perceived to be overwhelming for patients and difficult to implement for healthcare professionals with current primary care resources. The health check programme consists of several components that are difficult to fully complete in limited time.

Conclusions

Advancing the prevention agenda will require strategies to support the delivery of behaviour change interventions in primary care. Greater emphasis needs to be given to promoting behaviour change through supportive environmental context. Further research is needed to evaluate current external lifestyle services to improve the intervention outcomes.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-018-0860-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Community-Engaged Lifestyle Medicine: Building Health Equity Through Preventive Medicine Residency Training

Vulnerable populations in the U.S. experience persistent disparities in chronic disease and associated lifestyle-based risk factors. Because of environmental, cultural, and health systems barriers affecting vulnerable populations, lifestyle medicine interventions may miss those at highest risk for chronic disease. Numerous reports suggest that graduate medical education (GME) inadequately prepares physicians to promote healthy lifestyles and health equity in vulnerable groups. General Preventive Medicine/Public Health (GPM/PH), the medical specialty dedicated to health promotion and disease prevention in populations, can fill this gap. However, virtually no published reports describe health equity-oriented GPM/PH residency programs. The authors describe implementation of the novel Community-Engaged Lifestyle Medicine at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley GPM/PH residency program between 2017 and 2018. Community-Engaged Lifestyle Medicine applies community engagement principles to lifestyle medicine practice, training residents in multilevel, intersectoral approaches promoting behavior change and health equity. Community-Engaged Lifestyle Medicine is described in the context of health equity and the local border community, along with associated curricular objectives and experiences. In 2017, the authors assessed first-year Community-Engaged Lifestyle Medicine process outcomes, fidelity to health equity mechanisms, and feasibility in a GPM/PH residency, by mapping Community-Engaged Lifestyle Medicine activities to American Council of Graduate Medical Education and the American College of Lifestyle Medicine competencies. The Community-Engaged Lifestyle Medicine framework was successfully implemented in 2017, meets all American Council of Graduate Medical Education competency domains, and demonstrates fidelity to mechanisms of community engagement, health equity, and the practice of lifestyle medicine. Community-Engaged Lifestyle Medicine represents a feasible and valid framework to promote health equity via GPM/PH and GME training and practice.

Barriers and facilitators among health professionals in primary care to prevention of cardiometabolic diseases: A systematic review

The aim of this study is to identify potential facilitators and barriers for health care professionals to undertake selective prevention of cardiometabolic diseases (CMD) in primary health care. We developed a search string for Medline, Embase, Cinahl and PubMed. We also screened reference lists of relevant articles to retain barriers and facilitators for prevention of CMD. We found 19 qualitative studies, 7 quantitative studies and 2 mixed qualitative and quantitative studies. In terms of five overarching categories, the most frequently reported barriers and facilitators were as follows: Structural (barriers: time restraints, ineffective counselling and interventions, insufficient reimbursement and problems with guidelines; facilitators: feasible and effective counselling and interventions, sufficient assistance and support, adequate referral, and identification of obstacles), Organizational (barriers: general organizational problems, role of practice, insufficient IT support, communication problems within health teams and lack of support services, role of staff, lack of suitable appointment times; facilitators: structured practice, IT support, flexibility of counselling, sufficient logistic/practical support and cooperation with allied health staff/community resources, responsibility to offer and importance of prevention), Professional (barriers: insufficient counselling skills, lack of knowledge and of experience; facilitators: sufficient training, effective in motivating patients), Patient-related factors (barriers: low adherence, causes problems for patients; facilitators: strong GP-patient relationship, appreciation from patients), and Attitudinal (barriers: negative attitudes to prevention; facilitators: positive attitudes of importance of prevention). We identified several frequently reported barriers and facilitators for prevention of CMD, which may be used in designing future implementation and intervention studies.

Barriers and facilitators to participation in a health check for cardiometabolic diseases in primary care: A systematic review

Background

Health checks for cardiometabolic diseases could play a role in the identification of persons at high risk for disease. To improve the uptake of these health checks in primary care, we need to know what barriers and facilitators determine participation.

Methods

We used an iterative search strategy consisting of three steps: (a) identification of key-articles; (b) systematic literature search in PubMed, Medline and Embase based on keywords; (c) screening of titles and abstracts and subsequently full-text screening. We summarised the results into four categories: characteristics, attitudes, practical reasons and healthcare provider-related factors.

Results

Thirty-nine studies were included. Attitudes such as wanting to know of cardiometabolic disease risk, feeling responsible for, and concerns about one’s own health were facilitators for participation. Younger age, smoking, low education and attitudes such as not wanting to be, or being, worried about the outcome, low perceived severity or susceptibility, and negative attitude towards health checks or prevention in general were barriers. Furthermore, practical issues such as information and the ease of access to appointments could influence participation.

Conclusion

Barriers and facilitators to participation in health checks for cardiometabolic diseases were heterogeneous. Hence, it is not possible to develop a ‘one size fits all’ approach to maximise the uptake. For optimal implementation we suggest a multifactorial approach adapted to the national context with special attention to people who might be more difficult to reach. Increasing the uptake of health checks could contribute to identifying the people at risk to be able to start preventive interventions.

Views of commissioners, managers and healthcare professionals on the NHS Health Check programme: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise data concerning the views of commissioners, managers and healthcare professionals towards the National Health Service (NHS) Health Check programme in general and the challenges faced when implementing it in practice.

DESIGN

A systematic review of surveys and interview studies with a descriptive analysis of quantitative data and thematic synthesis of qualitative data.

DATA SOURCES

An electronic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Health Management Information Consortium, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, PsycInfo, Web of Science, OpenGrey, the Cochrane Library, NHS Evidence, Google Scholar, Google, ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry from 1 January 1996 to 9 November 2016 with no language restriction and manual screening of reference lists of all included papers.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Primary research reporting views of commissioners, managers or healthcare professionals on the NHS Health Check programme and its implementation in practice.

RESULTS

Of 18 524 citations, 15 articles met the inclusion criteria. There was evidence from both quantitative and qualitative studies that some commissioners and general practice (GP) healthcare professionals were enthusiastic about the programme, whereas others raised concerns around inequality of uptake, the evidence base and cost-effectiveness. In contrast, those working in pharmacies were all positive about programme benefits, citing opportunities for their business and staff. The main challenges to implementation were: difficulties with information technology and computer software, resistance to the programme from some GPs, the impact on workload and staffing, funding and training needs. Inadequate privacy was also a challenge in pharmacy and community settings, along with difficulty recruiting people eligible for Health Checks and poor public access to some venues.

CONCLUSIONS

The success of the NHS Health Check Programme relies on engagement by those responsible for its commissioning, management and delivery. Recognising and addressing the challenges identified in this review, in particular the concerns of GPs, are important for the future of the programme.

GPs' knowledge, use, and confidence in national physical activity and health guidelines and tools: a questionnaire-based survey of general practice in England

BACKGROUND

Physical activity (PA) brief advice in health care is effective at getting individuals active. It has been suggested that one in four people would be more active if advised by a GP or nurse, but as many as 72% of GPs do not discuss the benefits of physical activity with patients.

AIM

To assess the knowledge, use, and confidence in national PA and Chief Medical Officer (CMO) health guidelines and tools among GPs in England.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Online questionnaire-based survey of self-selecting GPs in England that took place over a 10-day period in March 2016.

METHOD

The questionnaire consisted of six multiple-choice questions and was available on the Doctors.net.uk (DNUK) homepage. Quotas were used to ensure good regional representation.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 1013 responses. Only 20% of responders were broadly or very familiar with the national PA guidelines. In all, 70% of GPs were aware of the General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPPAQ), but 26% were not familiar with any PA assessment tools, and 55% reported that they had not undertaken any training with respect to encouraging PA.

CONCLUSION

The majority of GPs in England (80%) are unfamiliar with the national PA guidelines. Awareness of the recommended tool for assessment, GPPAQ, is higher than use by GPs. This may be because it is used by other clinical staff, for example, as part of the NHS Health Check programme. Although brief advice in isolation by GPs on PA will only be a part of the behaviour change journey, it is an important prompt, especially if repeated as part of routine practice. This study highlights the need for significant improvement in knowledge, skills, and confidence to maximise the potential for PA advice in GP consultations.

Patient experience of NHS health checks: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis

OBJECTIVE

To review the experiences of patients attending NHS Health Checks in England.

DESIGN

A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies with a thematic synthesis of qualitative studies.

DATA SOURCES

An electronic literature search of Medline, Embase, Health Management Information Consortium, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, PsycInfo, Web of Science, OpenGrey, the Cochrane Library, National Health Service (NHS) Evidence, Google Scholar, Google, Clinical Trials.gov and the ISRCTN registry to 09/11/16 with no language restriction and manual screening of reference lists of all included papers.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Primary research reporting experiences of patients who have attended NHS Health Checks.

RESULTS

20 studies met the inclusion criteria, 9 reporting quantitative data and 15 qualitative data. There were consistently high levels of reported satisfaction in surveys, with over 80% feeling that they had benefited from an NHS Health Check. Data from qualitative studies showed that the NHS Health Check had been perceived to act as a wake-up call for many who reported having gone on to make substantial lifestyle changes which they attributed to the NHS Health Check. However, some had been left with a feeling of unmet expectations, were confused about or unable to remember their risk scores, found the lifestyle advice too simplistic and non-personalised or were confused about follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

While participants were generally very supportive of the NHS Health Check programme and examples of behaviour change were reported, there are a number of areas where improvements could be made. These include greater clarity around the aims of the programme within the promotional material, more proactive support for lifestyle change and greater appreciation of the challenges of communicating risk and the limitations of relying on the risk score alone as a trigger for facilitating behaviour change.