The effectiveness of general practice-based health checks on health behaviour and incidence on non-communicable diseases in individuals with low socioeconomic position: a randomised controlled trial in Denmark

Checkup Visits in Adult Federally Qualified Health Center Patients: a Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Checkup visits (i.e., general health checks) can increase preventive service completion and lead to improved treatment of new chronic illnesses. After the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, preventive service completion decreased in many groups that receive care in safety net settings.

OBJECTIVE

To examine potential benefits associated with checkups in federally qualified health center (FQHC) patients.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study, from March 2018 to February 2022.

PATIENTS

Adults at seven FQHCs in Illinois.

INTERVENTIONS

Checkups during a two-year Baseline (i.e., pre-COVID-19) period and two-year COVID-19 period.

MAIN MEASURES

The primary outcome was COVID-19 period checkup completion. Secondary outcomes were: mammography completion; new diagnoses of four common chronic illnesses (hypertension, diabetes, depression, or high cholesterol), and; initiation of chronic illness medications.

KEY RESULTS

Among 106,114 included patients, race/ethnicity was most commonly Latino/Hispanic (42.1%) or non-Hispanic Black (30.2%). Most patients had Medicaid coverage (40.4%) or were uninsured (33.9%). While 21.0% of patients completed a checkup during Baseline, only 15.3% did so during the COVID-19 period. In multivariable regression analysis, private insurance (versus Medicaid) was positively associated with COVID-19 period checkup completion (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval, [CI], 1.10-1.19), while non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (versus Latino/Hispanic) was inversely associated with checkup completion (aRR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.93). In secondary outcome analysis, COVID-19 period checkup completion was associated with 61% greater probability of mammography (aRR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.52-1.71), and significantly higher probability of diagnosis, and treatment initiation, for all four chronic illnesses. In exploratory interaction analysis, checkup completion was more modestly associated with diagnosis and treatment of hypertension and high cholesterol in some younger age groups (versus age ≥ 65).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large FQHC cohort, checkup completion markedly decreased during the pandemic. Checkup completion was associated with preventive service completion, chronic illness detection, and initiation of chronic illness treatment.

The Association Between the Frequency of Annual Health Checks Participation and the Control of Cardiovascular Risk Factors

Background

General health checks can help in controlling cardiovascular risk factors. However, few studies have investigated whether regular participation in annual health checks could further improve the control of cardiovascular risk factors compared with intermittent participation. Therefore, our study aimed to explore the association between the frequency of annual health check participation and the control of cardiovascular risk factors.

Methods

Residents aged ≥ 65 years or having chronic diseases (hypertension or diabetes) from 37 communities of Guangzhou, Guangdong, who participated in the Basic Public Health Service project between January 2015 and December 2019, were enrolled and divided into 3 groups ("Sometimes," "Usually," and "Always") according to their frequencies of annual health check participation. Multivariable linear regression models were performed to assess the association between the frequency of annual health check participation and the control of cardiovascular risk factors. A subgroup analysis stratified by gender was also conducted.

Results

In total, 9,102 participants were finally included. Significant differences were identified between groups in systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), weight, fasting glucose, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and serum creatinine. After fully adjusting for confounding factors, residents who always participated in the annual health check tended to have lower SBP (β = -4.36, 95% CI: -5.46; -3.26, p < 0.001), fasting glucose (β = -0.27, 95% CI: -0.38; -0.15, p < 0.001), and total cholesterol (β = -0.19, 95% CI: -0.26; -0.13, p < 0.001), compared with those who attended sometimes. Furthermore, gender did not alter these associations.

Conclusion

A higher frequency of annual health check participation was associated with lower SBP, fasting glucose, and total cholesterol.

Strategies to improve smoking cessation rates in primary care

BACKGROUND

Primary care is an important setting in which to treat tobacco addiction. However, the rates at which providers address smoking cessation and the success of that support vary. Strategies can be implemented to improve and increase the delivery of smoking cessation support (e.g. through provider training), and to increase the amount and breadth of support given to people who smoke (e.g. through additional counseling or tailored printed materials).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of strategies intended to increase the success of smoking cessation interventions in primary care settings. To assess whether any effect that these interventions have on smoking cessation may be due to increased implementation by healthcare providers.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries to 10 September 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs (cRCTs) carried out in primary care, including non-pregnant adults. Studies investigated a strategy or strategies to improve the implementation or success of smoking cessation treatment in primary care. These strategies could include interventions designed to increase or enhance the quality of existing support, or smoking cessation interventions offered in addition to standard care (adjunctive interventions). Intervention strategies had to be tested in addition to and in comparison with standard care, or in addition to other active intervention strategies if the effect of an individual strategy could be isolated. Standard care typically incorporates physician-delivered brief behavioral support, and an offer of smoking cessation medication, but differs across studies. Studies had to measure smoking abstinence at six months' follow-up or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome - smoking abstinence - was measured using the most rigorous intention-to-treat definition available. We also extracted outcome data for quit attempts, and the following markers of healthcare provider performance: asking about smoking status; advising on cessation; assessment of participant readiness to quit; assisting with cessation; arranging follow-up for smoking participants. Where more than one study investigated the same strategy or set of strategies, and measured the same outcome, we conducted meta-analyses using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects methods to generate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 81 RCTs and cRCTs, involving 112,159 participants. Fourteen were rated at low risk of bias, 44 at high risk, and the remainder at unclear risk. We identified moderate-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency, that the provision of adjunctive counseling by a health professional other than the physician (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.55; I2 = 44%; 22 studies, 18,150 participants), and provision of cost-free medications (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.76; I2 = 63%; 10 studies,7560 participants) increased smoking quit rates in primary care. There was also moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, that the addition of tailored print materials to standard smoking cessation treatment increased the number of people who had successfully stopped smoking at six months' follow-up or more (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.59; I2 = 37%; 6 studies, 15,978 participants). There was no clear evidence that providing participants who smoked with biomedical risk feedback increased their likelihood of quitting (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.41; I2 = 40%; 7 studies, 3491 participants), or that provider smoking cessation training (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.41; I2 = 66%; 7 studies, 13,685 participants) or provider incentives (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.34; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 2454 participants) increased smoking abstinence rates. However, in assessing the former two strategies we judged the evidence to be of low certainty and in assessing the latter strategies it was of very low certainty. We downgraded the evidence due to imprecision, inconsistency and risk of bias across these comparisons. There was some indication that provider training increased the delivery of smoking cessation support, along with the provision of adjunctive counseling and cost-free medications. However, our secondary outcomes were not measured consistently, and in many cases analyses were subject to substantial statistical heterogeneity, imprecision, or both, making it difficult to draw conclusions. Thirty-four studies investigated multicomponent interventions to improve smoking cessation rates. There was substantial variation in the combinations of strategies tested, and the resulting individual study effect estimates, precluding meta-analyses in most cases. Meta-analyses provided some evidence that adjunctive counseling combined with either cost-free medications or provider training enhanced quit rates when compared with standard care alone. However, analyses were limited by small numbers of events, high statistical heterogeneity, and studies at high risk of bias. Analyses looking at the effects of combining provider training with flow sheets to aid physician decision-making, and with outreach facilitation, found no clear evidence that these combinations increased quit rates; however, analyses were limited by imprecision, and there was some indication that these approaches did improve some forms of provider implementation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that providing adjunctive counseling by an allied health professional, cost-free smoking cessation medications, and tailored printed materials as part of smoking cessation support in primary care can increase the number of people who achieve smoking cessation. There is no clear evidence that providing participants with biomedical risk feedback, or primary care providers with training or incentives to provide smoking cessation support enhance quit rates. However, we rated this evidence as of low or very low certainty, and so conclusions are likely to change as further evidence becomes available. Most of the studies in this review evaluated smoking cessation interventions that had already been extensively tested in the general population. Further studies should assess strategies designed to optimize the delivery of those interventions already known to be effective within the primary care setting. Such studies should be cluster-randomized to account for the implications of implementation in this particular setting. Due to substantial variation between studies in this review, identifying optimal characteristics of multicomponent interventions to improve the delivery of smoking cessation treatment was challenging. Future research could use component network meta-analysis to investigate this further.

General Health Checks in Adult Primary Care: A Review

IMPORTANCE

General health checks, also known as general medical examinations, periodic health evaluations, checkups, routine visits, or wellness visits, are commonly performed in adult primary care to identify and prevent disease. Although general health checks are often expected and advocated by patients, clinicians, insurers, and health systems, others question their value.

OBSERVATIONS

Randomized trials and observational studies with control groups reported in prior systematic reviews and an updated literature review through March 2021 were included. Among 19 randomized trials (906 to 59 616 participants; follow-up, 1 to 30 years), 5 evaluated a single general health check, 7 evaluated annual health checks, 1 evaluated biannual checks, and 6 evaluated health checks delivered at other frequencies. Twelve of 13 observational studies (240 to 471 415 participants; follow-up, cross-sectional to 5 years) evaluated a single general health check. General health checks were generally not associated with decreased mortality, cardiovascular events, or cardiovascular disease incidence. For example, in the South-East London Screening Study (n = 7229), adults aged 40 to 64 years who were invited to 2 health checks over 2 years, compared with adults not invited to screening, experienced no 8-year mortality benefit (6% vs 5%). General health checks were associated with increased detection of chronic diseases, such as depression and hypertension; moderate improvements in controlling risk factors, such as blood pressure and cholesterol; increased clinical preventive service uptake, such as colorectal and cervical cancer screening; and improvements in patient-reported outcomes, such as quality of life and self-rated health. In the Danish Check-In Study (n = 1104), more patients randomized to receive to a single health check, compared with those randomized to receive usual care, received a new antidepressant prescription over 1 year (5% vs 2%; P = .007). In a propensity score-matched analysis (n = 8917), a higher percentage of patients who attended a Medicare Annual Wellness Visit, compared with those who did not, underwent colorectal cancer screening (69% vs 60%; P < .01). General health checks were sometimes associated with modest improvements in health behaviors such as physical activity and diet. In the OXCHECK trial (n = 4121), fewer patients randomized to receive annual health checks, compared with those not randomized to receive health checks, exercised less than once per month (68% vs 71%; difference, 3.3% [95% CI, 0.5%-6.1%]). Potential adverse effects in individual studies included an increased risk of stroke and increased mortality attributed to increased completion of advance directives.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

General health checks were not associated with reduced mortality or cardiovascular events, but were associated with increased chronic disease recognition and treatment, risk factor control, preventive service uptake, and improved patient-reported outcomes. Primary care teams may reasonably offer general health checks, especially for groups at high risk of overdue preventive services, uncontrolled risk factors, low self-rated health, or poor connection or inadequate access to primary care.

Gender-Specific Prevalence of Risk Factors for Non-Communicable Diseases by Health Service Use among Schoolteachers in Afghanistan

Objectives of this study were: (1) to examine gender differences in biomedical indicators, lifestyle behaviors, self-health check practices, receipt of professional non-communicable disease (NCD)-related lifestyle advice, and the use of health services among teachers in Afghanistan; and (2) to seek the patterns of these indicators among users and non-users of health services among both male and female teachers. This cross-sectional study was carried out among 600 schoolteachers in Kabul city in February 2017. Gender differences in percentage distributions of abnormal biomedical indicators, lifestyle behaviors, self-health check practices, and receipt of professional lifestyle advice were examined. These patterns were further analyzed according to the use of health services in the previous 12 months by both genders. The results showed that male teachers had a higher prevalence of hypertension, increased serum triglycerides, physically active lifestyle, and tobacco use than female teachers (28.2/20.4, p = 0.038; 47.0/37.9, p = 0.040; 54.3/40.9, p = 0.002; 15.8/0.7, p < 0.001, respectively); female teachers had a higher prevalence of increased serum LDL cholesterol, overweight/obesity, and frequent consumption of fruits/vegetables than male teachers (61.3/50.8, p = 0.018; 64.7/43.5, p < 0.001; 71.4/53.8, p < 0.001, respectively). Female teachers were more likely to receive professional lifestyle advice related to NCDs than male teachers. Although users of health services practiced self-health checks and received professional lifestyle advice more frequently than non-users, abnormal biomedical indicators were similarly shown among users and non-users of health services in both genders. In conclusion, high prevalence of abnormal biomedical indicators was indicated in both male and female teachers, although the specific abnormal biomedical indicators differed by gender. Users and non-users of health services presented a similar prevalence of these abnormal indicators. Understanding the differences in patterns of NCD risk factors is essential when developing gender-informed policies.

[Dementia prevention and primary care: Estimation of the target population]

BACKGROUND

The prevention of dementia, especially the cardiovascular prevention of cognitive disorders, is increasingly coming into the focus of health services research. The aim of this study is to determine the possible target population for dementia prevention approaches as well as frequency of health examinations (HE) in individual general practitioner offices (GP).

METHOD

987 GP practices, which are covered by the nationwide IMS Disease Analyzer database (IQVIA) have been investigated for the prevalence of the following diagnoses, which are considered risk factors for the development of dementia Hypertension, obesity, hearing loss in each age group 45-65 and diabetes and depression in the age group 65 and older. In addition, it was recorded how many of these patients received a HE).

RESULTS

In a sample of 2,398,405 patients receiving primary care, the target population relevant for dementia prevention measures in 2018 consisted of 191,883 patients with hypertension, 23,308 with obesity, 5,059 with hearing loss, 120,200 with diabetes and 43,233 with depression. More than a quarter of these patients have already had a HE. In 2018, patients with hypertension (N=51), diabetes (N=30.5) and depression (N=11.3) were the most frequently treated patients, less frequently patients with obesity (N=8.2) and hearing loss (N=1.6).

CONCLUSION

On the basis of defined diagnoses in certain phases of life, a manageable group of patients can be identified who are eligible for specific dementia preventive interventions. The implementation of dementia preventive interventions in practices will be more difficult for the less frequent treatment diagnoses obesity and hearing loss than for the much more frequent treatment diagnoses hypertension, diabetes and depression.

Why do general practitioners not refer patients to behaviour-change programmes after preventive health checks? A mixed-method study

Background

This study was embedded in the Check-In randomised controlled trial that investigated the effectiveness of general practice-based preventive health checks on adverse health behaviour and early detection of non-communicable diseases offered to individuals with low socioeconomic positions. Despite successful recruitment of patients, the intervention had no effect. One reason for the lack of effectiveness could be low rates of referral to behaviour-change programmes in the municipality, resulting in a low dose of the intervention delivered. The aim of this study is to examine the referral pattern of the general practitioners and potential barriers to referring eligible patients to these behaviour-change programmes.

Methods

A mixed-method design was used, including patients’ questionnaires, recording sheet from the health checks and semi-structured qualitative interviews with general practitioners. All data used in the study were collected during the time of the intervention. Logistic regressions were used to estimate odds ratios for being eligible and for receiving referrals. The qualitative empirical material was analysed thematically. Emerging themes were grouped, discussed and the material was re-read. The themes were reviewed alongside the analysis of the quantitative material to refine and discuss the themes.

Results

Of the 364 patients, who attended the health check, 165 (45%) were marked as eligible for a referral to behaviour-change programme by their general practitioner and of these, 90 (55%) received referrals. Daily smoking (OR = 3.22; 95% CI:2.01–5.17), high-risk alcohol consumption (OR = 2.66; 95% CI:1.38–5.12), obesity (OR = 2.89; 95% CI:1.61–5.16) and poor lung function (OR = 2.05; 95% CI:1.14–3.70) were all significantly associated with being eligible, but not with receiving referral. Four themes emerged as the main barriers to referring patients to behaviour-change programmes: 1) general practitioners’ responsibility and ownership for their patients, 2) balancing information and accepting a rejection, 3) assessment of the right time for behavioural change and 4) general practitioners’ attitudes towards behaviour-change programmes in the municipality.

Conclusion

We identified important barriers among the general practitioners which influenced whether the patients received referrals to behaviour-change programmes in the municipality and thereby influenced the dose of intervention delivered in Check-In. The findings suggest that an effort is needed to assist the collaboration between general practices and the municipalities’ primary preventive services.

Trial registration

Clinical Trials NCT01979107; October 25, 2013.