Modelling tool to support decision-making in the NHS Health Check programme: workshops, systematic review and co-production with users

The NHS Health Check programme: a survey of programme delivery in England before and after the Covid-19 pandemic response

Background

This study investigated NHS Health Check programme delivery before and after the Covid-19 pandemic response, with a focus on support services and referral methods available to Health Check attendees. The NHS Health Check is an important part of England's Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) prevention programme.

Methods

Public health commissioners from all 151 local authorities responsible for commissioning the NHS Health Check programme were surveyed in 2021, using an online questionnaire to capture detail about programme delivery, changes in delivery because of the pandemic response, and monitoring of programme outcomes. Four-point rating scales were used to obtain level of confidence in capacity, accessibility and usage of follow-on support services for Health Check attendees. A typology of programme delivery was developed, and associations between delivery categories and a range of relevant variables were assessed using one-way analysis of variance.

Results

Sixty-eight responses were received on behalf of 74 (of 151) local authorities (49%), across all geographical regions. Our findings suggest a basic typology of delivery, though with considerable variation in who is providing the Checks, where and how, and with continued changes prompted by the Covid-19 pandemic. Support for risk management is highly varied with notable gaps in some areas. Local authorities using a model of delivery that includes community venues tended to have a higher number of services to support behaviour change following the Check, and greater confidence in the accessibility and usage of these services. A minority of local authorities gather data on referrals for Health Check attendees, or on outcomes of referrals.

Conclusions

The Covid-19 pandemic has prompted continued changes in delivery, which are likely to influence patient experience and outcomes; these need careful evaluation. The programme's delivery and commissioners' intentions to follow through risk communication with appropriate support is challenged by the complexity of the commissioning landscape.

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).

The Future of Public Mental Health: Challenges and Opportunities

Policy Points Social policies such as policies advancing universal childcare to expand Medicaid coverage of home- and community-based care for seniors and people with disabilities and for universal preschool are the types of policies needed to address social determinants of poor mental health. Population-based global budgeting approaches like accountable care and total cost of care models have the potential to improve population mental health by incentivizing health systems to control costs while simultaneously improving outcomes for the populations they serve. Policies expanding reimbursement for services delivered by peer support specialists are needed. People with lived experience of mental illness are uniquely well suited to helping their peers navigate treatment and other support services.

What factors influence differential uptake of NHS Health Checks, diabetes and hypertension reviews among women in ethnically diverse South London? Cross-sectional analysis of 63,000 primary care records

BACKGROUND

Uptake of health checks among women has not been examined in relation to patient and General Practitioner (GP) practice level factors. We investigated patient and practice level factors associated with differential uptake of health checks.

METHODS

Primary care records from 44 practices in Lambeth for women aged 40-74 years old (N = 62,967) from 2000-2018 were analysed using multi-level logistic regression models. An odds ratio (OR) >1 indicates increased occurrence of no health check.

FINDINGS

The mean age (IQR) of the included female sample (aged 40-74 years) was 52.9 years (45.0-59.0). Adjusted for patient-level factors (age, ethnicity, English as first language, overweight/obesity, smoking, attendance to GP practices, and co-morbidity), the odds of non-uptake of health checks were higher for Other White (OR 1.24, 95% confidence interval 1.17-1.33), and Other ethnicity (1.20, 1.07-1.35) vs. White British. It was also higher for 50-69 year olds (1.55, 1.47-1.62), 70-74 year olds (1.60, 1.49-1.72) vs. 40-49 year olds. These ORs did not change on adjustments for practice level factors (proportion of patients living in deprived areas, proportion of patients with ≥1 chronic condition, ≥3 emergency diabetes admissions annually, GP density/1000 patients, quality outcome framework score of ≥ 95%, and patient satisfaction scores of ≥80%). Non-uptake was lower for Black Caribbeans, Bangladeshis, overweight/obese patients, frequent practice attenders and comorbid patients.

INTERPRETATION

Differential uptake in health checks remained after adjustment for patient and practice level factors. Better measures of social determinants of health and of practice context are needed.

FUNDING

NIHR Research for Patient Benefit Programme (NIHR202769).