Enhanced Invitations Using the Question-Behavior Effect and Financial Incentives to Promote Health Check Uptake in Primary Care.

Background: Uptake of health checks for cardiovascular risk assessment in primary care in England is lower than anticipated. The question-behavior effect (QBE) may offer a simple, scalable intervention to increase health check uptake. Purpose: The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of enhanced invitation methods employing the QBE, with or without a financial incentive to return the questionnaire, at increasing uptake of health checks. Methods: We conducted a three-arm randomized trial including all patients at 18 general practices in two London boroughs, who were invited for health checks from July 2013 to December 2014. Participants were randomized to three trial arms: (i) Standard health check invitation letter only; (ii) QBE questionnaire followed by standard invitation letter; or (iii) QBE questionnaire with offer of a financial incentive to return the questionnaire, followed by standard invitation letter. In intention to treat analysis, the primary outcome of completion of health check within 6 months of invitation, was evaluated using a p value of .0167 for significance. Results: 12,459 participants were randomized. Health check uptake was evaluated for 12,052 (97%) with outcome data collected. Health check uptake within 6 months of invitation was: standard invitation, 590 / 4,095 (14.41%); QBE questionnaire, 630 / 3,988 (15.80%); QBE questionnaire and financial incentive, 629 / 3,969 (15.85%). Difference following QBE questionnaire, 1.43% (95% confidence interval -0.12 to 2.97%, p = .070); following QBE questionnaire and financial incentive, 1.52% (-0.03 to 3.07%, p = .054). Conclusions: Uptake of health checks following a standard invitation was low and not significantly increased through enhanced invitation methods using the QBE.

Cardiovascular risk at health checks performed opportunistically or following an invitation letter. Cohort study.

Background: A population-based programme of health checks has been established in England. Participants receive postal invitations through a population-based call-recall system but health check providers may also offer health checks opportunistically. We compared cardiovascular risk scores for 'invited' and 'opportunistic' health checks. Methods: Cohort study of all health checks completed at 18 general practices from July 2013 to June 2015. For each general practice, cardiovascular (CVD) risk scores were compared by source of check and pooled using meta-analysis. Effect estimates were compared by gender, age-group, ethnicity and fifths of deprivation. Results: There were 6184 health checks recorded (2280 invited and 3904 opportunistic) with CVD risk scores recorded for 5359 (87%) participants. There were 17.0% of invited checks and 22.2% of opportunistic health checks with CVD risk score ≥10%; a relative increment of 28% (95% confidence interval: 14-44%, P < 0.001). In the most deprived quintile, 15.3% of invited checks and 22.4% of opportunistic checks were associated with elevated CVD risk (adjusted odds ratio: 1.94, 1.37-2.74, P  < 0.001). Conclusions: Respondents at health checks performed opportunistically are at higher risk of cardiovascular disease than those participating in response to a standard invitation letter, potentially reducing the effect of uptake inequalities.

Do health checks improve risk factor detection in primary care? Matched cohort study using electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effect of NHS Health Checks on cardiovascular risk factor detection and inequalities. METHODS: Matched cohort study in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, including participants who received a health check in England between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2013, together with matched control participants, with linked deprivation scores. RESULTS: There were 91 618 eligible participants who received a health check, of whom 75 123 (82%) were matched with 182 245 controls. After the health check, 90% of men and 92% of women had complete data for blood pressure, total cholesterol, smoking and body mass index; a net 51% increase (P < 0.001) over controls. After the check, gender and deprivation inequalities in recording of all risk factors were lower than for controls. Net increase in risk factor detection was greater for hypercholesterolaemia (men +33%; women +32%) than for obesity (men +8%; women +4%) and hypertension in men only (+5%) (all P < 0.001). Detection of smoking was 5% lower in health check participants than controls (P < 0.001). Over 4 years, statins were prescribed to 11% of health -check participants and 7.6% controls (hazard ratio 1.58, 95% confidence interval 1.53-1.63, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: NHS Health Checks are associated with increased detection of hypercholesterolaemia, and to a lesser extent obesity and hypertension, but smokers may be under-represented.

Estimating the yield of NHS Health Checks in England: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the yield of the NHS Health Checks programme. METHODS: A cohort study, conducted in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in England. Electronic health records were analysed for patients aged 40-74 receiving an NHS Health Check between 2010 and 2013. RESULTS: There were 65 324 men and 75 032 women receiving a health check. For every 1000 men assessed, there were 205 smokers (95% confidence interval 195-215), 355 (340-369) with hypertension (≥140/90 mmHg) and 633 (607-658) with elevated cholesterol (≥5 mmol/l). Among 1000 women, there were 161 (151-171) smokers, 247 (238-257) with hypertension and 668 (646-689) with elevated cholesterol. In the 12 months following the check, statins were prescribed to 18% of men and 21% of women with ≥20% cardiovascular risk and antihypertensive drugs to 11% of men and 16% of women with ≥20% cardiovascular risk. Slight reductions in risk factor values were observed in the minority of participants with follow-up values recorded in the 15 months following the check. CONCLUSIONS: A universal primary prevention programme identifies substantial risk factor burden in a population without known cardiovascular disease. Research is needed to monitor interventions, and intermediate- and long-term outcomes, in those identified at high risk.

Influences on individuals' decisions to take up the offer of a health check: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Health checks are promoted to evaluate individuals' risk of developing disease and to initiate health promotion and disease prevention interventions. The NHS Health Check is a cardiovascular risk assessment programme introduced in the UK aimed at preventing cardiovascular disease (CVD). Uptake of health checks is lower than anticipated. This study aimed to explore influences on people's decisions to take up the offer of a health check. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with people registered at four general practices in South London. The interview schedule was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. Data were analysed qualitatively using the Framework method using NVivo for data management. RESULTS: Twenty-seven participants invited for a health check were included in the study. Seventeen received the health check while 10 either did not attend or failed to complete the check. Five themes emerging from the data included a lack of awareness of the health check programme, beliefs about susceptibility to CVD, beliefs about civic responsibility, issues concerning access to appointments, and beliefs about the consequences of having a check. CONCLUSIONS: Health check programmes need to raise public awareness to ensure that people are informed about the objectives and nature of the programme in order to reach an informed decision about taking up the invitation. Emphasizing the benefits of prevention and early detection might encourage attendance in those who are reluctant to burden the public health-care systems. Extending outreach initiatives and increasing 'out of hours' provision at local community sites could facilitate access.

Variations in the organization and delivery of the 'NHS health check' in primary care.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the organization of the new cardiovascular risk assessment programme, NHS Health Checks, in general practices. METHODS: All 99 general practices in two inner London boroughs were invited to participate in a cross-sectional survey by completing an online questionnaire. RESULTS: Data were analysed for 66/99 (67%) eligible practices. Training attended for delivering the Health Check included measurement methods (43%), delivering risk information (65%) and advising on lifestyle change (62%). The Framingham risk score was used by 66% of practices, the QRisk score by 12% and both by 8%. Advice given to patients identified as high risk was 'usually' brief at 26% of practices, advice was given verbally at 92% of practices, in written form at 74% and through interactive visual materials at 29%. Statins were 'usually' prescribed to high-risk patients by 34% of practices and antihypertensive drugs by 22%. The follow-up of high-risk patients was by means of a register with regular recall at 51% of general practices. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable diversity in general practices' implementation of the NHS Health Check. A formal quality assurance process may be required in order to optimize the implementation of the NHS cardiovascular risk assessment programme.

Self-Administered Premedication: Improving Taxane Chemotherapy Treatment
.

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving taxane therapy are at risk for hypersensitivity reactions without appropriate premedication management. Patients must understand the importance of taking premedications as prescribed to prevent reactions.
. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to implement and evaluate a multidisciplinary practice protocol comprised of standardized nursing documentation of premedication regimens, teaching, and patient adherence to at-home premedication in an electronic health record (EHR).
. METHODS: A new process was developed to provide standardized prescriptions, a personalized instruction sheet for patients and families, and a standardized approach to document adherence and teaching in the EHR. Pre- and post-EHR audits were used twice to evaluate the practice changes.
. FINDINGS: The findings of the first audit suggested improvement in all practice changes. After the first audit, reinforcement of the changes occurred within the group and with one-on-one meetings. The goal of 90% adherence was met at the second audit.

Nurse specialist led follow-up in lung cancer: The experience of developing and delivering a new model of care.

Data from an earlier paper reporting on a study comparing conventional medical follow-up with nurse specialist follow-up of patients with lung cancer demonstrated that follow-up by nurse specialists is safe, effective and can lead to greater levels of patient satisfaction. The process and experience of developing a nurse specialist role in lung cancer follow-up care has not yet been described. The aims of this paper are to describe the preparation and development of a model of nurse led follow-up care, identify key nursing interventions provided within nurse led follow-up care and provide insights into the experiences of nurse specialists providing follow-up care. Data were collected from nurse specialists' patient case-records and from meetings held with the study team. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the nurse specialists providing follow-up care and the study coordinators. The nature of the nursing role in lung cancer follow-up care is described. In addition, four themes relating to the process of developing a nurse led follow-up role are identified. These are: 'training', 'becoming credible', 'emotional burden' and 'making a difference'. Managing follow-up care for patients with lung cancer can be rewarding for nurse specialists. However, it can also be emotionally demanding. Training and support for such roles is vital and requires further in-depth research.

Enhanced invitation methods and uptake of health checks in primary care: randomised controlled trial and cohort study using electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: A national programme of health checks to identify risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is being rolled out but is encountering difficulties because of low uptake. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of an enhanced invitation method using the question-behaviour effect (QBE), with or without the offer of a financial incentive to return the QBE questionnaire, at increasing the uptake of health checks. The research went on to evaluate the reasons for the low uptake of invitations and compare the case mix for invited and opportunistic health checks. DESIGN: Three-arm randomised trial and cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: All participants invited for a health check from 18 general practices. Individual participants were randomised. INTERVENTIONS: (1) Standard health check invitation only; (2) QBE questionnaire followed by a standard invitation; and (3) QBE questionnaire with offer of a financial incentive to return the questionnaire, followed by a standard invitation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was completion of the health check within 6 months of invitation. A p-value of 0.0167 was used for significance. In the cohort study of all health checks completed during the study period, the case mix was compared for participants responding to invitations and those receiving 'opportunistic' health checks. Participants were not aware that several types of invitation were in use. The research team were blind to trial arm allocation at outcome data extraction. RESULTS: In total, 12,459 participants were included in the trial and health check uptake was evaluated for 12,052 participants for whom outcome data were collected. Health check uptake was as follows: standard invitation, 590 out of 4095 (14.41%); QBE questionnaire, 630 out of 3988 (15.80%); QBE questionnaire and financial incentive, 629 out of 3969 (15.85%). The increase in uptake associated with the QBE questionnaire was 1.43% [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12% to 2.97%; p = 0.070] and the increase in uptake associated with the QBE questionnaire and offer of financial incentive was 1.52% (95% CI -0.03% to 3.07%; p = 0.054). The difference in uptake associated with the offer of an incentive to return the QBE questionnaire was -0.01% (95% CI -1.59% to 1.58%; p = 0.995). During the study period, 58% of health check cardiovascular risk assessments did not follow a trial invitation. People who received an 'opportunistic' health check had greater odds of a ≥ 10% CVD risk than those who received an invited health check (adjusted odds ratio 1.70, 95% CI 1.45 to 1.99; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of a health check following an invitation letter is low and is not increased through an enhanced invitation method using the QBE. The offer of a £5 incentive did not increase the rate of return of the QBE questionnaire. A high proportion of all health checks are performed opportunistically and not in response to a standard invitation letter. Participants receiving opportunistic checks are at higher risk of CVD than those responding to standard invitations. Future research should aim to increase the accessibility of preventative medical interventions to increase uptake. Research should also explore the wider use of electronic health records in delivering efficient trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN42856343. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 84. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.