Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Mills K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5695333 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Mills Katie K Harte Emma E Martin Adam A MacLure Calum C Griffin Simon J SJ Mant Jonathan J Meads Catherine C Saunders Catherine L CL Walter Fiona M FM Usher-Smith Juliet A JA

BMJ open 20171115 11

<h4>Objective</h4>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.<h4>Design</h4>A systematic review of surveys and interview studies with a descriptive analysis of quantitative data and thematic synthesis of qualitative data.<h4>Data sources</h4>An electronic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Health Management I ...[more]

PMID: 29146658

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo update a rapid review published in 2017, which evaluated the NHS Health Check programme.MethodsAn enlarged body of evidence was used to readdress six research objectives from a rapid review published in 2017, relating to the uptake, patient experiences and effectiveness of the NHS Health Check programme. Data sources included MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Global Health, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, NHS Evidence, Google Scholar, Google, ClinicalTrials.gov and the ISRCTN registry, Web of Science, Science Citation Index, The Cochrane Library, NHS Evidence, OpenGrey and hand searching article reference lists. These searches identified records from between January 1996 and December 2019. Screening, data extraction and quality appraisal using the Critical Appraisals Skills Programme checklists were performed in duplicate. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations was implemented. Data were synthesised narratively.Results697 studies were identified, and 29 new studies included in the review update. The number of published studies on the uptake, patient experiences and effectiveness of the NHS Health Check programme has increased by 43% since the rapid review published in 2017. However, findings from the original review remain largely unchanged. NHS Health Checks led to an overall increase in the detection of raised risk factors and morbidities including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, raised blood pressure, cholesterol and chronic kidney disease. Individuals most likely to attend the NHS Health Check programme included women, persons aged ≥60 years and those from more socioeconomically advantaged backgrounds. Opportunistic invitations increased uptake among men, younger persons and those with a higher deprivation level.ConclusionsAlthough results are inconsistent between studies, the NHS Health Check programme is associated with increased detection of heightened cardiovascular disease risk factors and diagnoses. Uptake varied between population subgroups. Opportunistic invitations may increase uptake.

Project description:IntroductionThe NHS Health Check aims to identify individuals at increased risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) among the adult population in England. The Health Check includes calculation of CVD risk and discussion of pharmacological and lifestyle approaches to manage risk, including referral to lifestyle support services. The programme is commissioned by Local Authorities (LAs) and is delivered by a range of different providers in different settings. There is significant variation in activity, with uptake ranging from 25% to 85% in different areas, and clear evidence of variation in implementation and delivery practice.Methods and analysisWe aim to understand how the NHS Health Check programme works in different settings, for different groups, so that we can recommend improvements to maximise intended outcomes. To do so, we will undertake a realist review and a survey of LA public health teams. Our review will follow Pawson's five iterative stages: (1) locate existing theories, (2) search for evidence, (3) article selection, (4) extract and organise data and (5) synthesise evidence and draw conclusions. Our review will include documents describing local implementation alongside published research studies. We will recruit a stakeholder group (including Public Health England, commissioners and providers of Health Checks, plus members of the public and patients) to advise us throughout. Our survey will be sent to all 152 LAs in England to gather detailed information on programme delivery (including COVID-19-related changes) and available referral services. This will enable us to map delivery across England and relate these data to programme outcomes.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this review. For the survey, we have received approval from the University of Kent Research Ethics Committee. Our findings will be used to develop recommendations on tailoring, implementation and design strategies to improve delivery of the NHS Health Check in different settings, for different groups.Prospero registration numberCRD42020163822.

Project description:BackgroundNational 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsThrough 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.

Project description:ObjectivesProposals to stratify breast screening by breast cancer risk aim to produce a better balance of benefits to harms. Notably, risk estimation calculated from common risk factors and a polygenic risk score would enable high-risk women to benefit from more frequent screening or preventive medication. This service would also identify low-risk women who experience fewer benefits from attending, as lower grade and in situ cancers may be treated unnecessarily. It may therefore be appropriate for low-risk women to attend screening less. This study aimed to elicit views regarding implementing less frequent screening for low-risk women from healthcare professionals who implement risk-stratified screening.MethodsHealthcare professionals involved in the delivery of risk-stratified breast screening were invited to participate in a focus group within the screening setting in which they work or have a telephone interview. Primary care staff were also invited to provide their perspective. Three focus groups and two telephone interviews were conducted with 28 healthcare professionals. To identify patterns across the sample, data were analysed as a single dataset using reflexive thematic analysis.ResultsAnalysis yielded three themes: Reservations concerning the introduction of less frequent screening, highlighting healthcare professionals' unease and concerns towards implementing less frequent screening; Considerations for the management of public knowledge, providing views on media impact on public opinion and the potential for a low-risk pathway to cause confusion and raise suspicion regarding implementation motives; and Deliberating service implications and reconfiguration management, where the practicalities of implementation are discussed.ConclusionsHealthcare professionals broadly supported less frequent screening but had concerns about implementation. It will be essential to address concerns regarding risk estimate accuracy, healthcare professional confidence, service infrastructure and public communication prior to introducing less frequent screening for low-risk women.

Project description:Medical leadership is an increasingly important aspect of hospital management. By engaging physicians in leadership roles, hospitals aim to improve their clinical and financial performances. Research has revealed numerous factors that are regarded as necessary for 'medical leaders' to master, however we lack insights into their relative importance. This study investigates the views of healthcare professionals and managers on what they consider the most important factors for medical leadership. Physicians (n = 11), nurses (n = 10), laboratory technicians (n = 4) and managers (n = 14) were interviewed using Q methodology. Participants ranked 34 statements on factors elicited from the scientific literature, including personal features, context-specific features, activities and roles. By-person factor analysis revealed three distinct views of medical leadership. The first view represents a strategic leader who prioritizes the interests of the hospital by participating in hospital strategy and decision making. The second view describes a social leader with strong collaboration and communication skills. The third view reflects an accepted leader among peers that is guided by a clear job description. Despite these differences, all respondents agreed upon the importance of personal skills in collaboration and communication, and having integrity and a clear vision. We find no differences in views related to particular healthcare professionals, managers, or departments as all views were defined by a mixture of departments and participants. The findings contribute to increased calls from both practice and literature to increase conceptual clarity by eliciting the relative importance of medical leadership-related factors. Hospitals that wish to increase the engagement of physicians in improving clinical and financial performances through medical leadership should focus on selecting and developing leaders who are strong strategists, socially skilled and accepted by clinical peers.

Project description:BackgroundIt is crucial to determine feasibility of risk-stratified screening to facilitate successful implementation. We introduced risk-stratification (BC-Predict) into the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) at three screening sites in north-west England from 2019 to 2021. The present study investigated the views of healthcare professionals (HCPs) on acceptability, barriers, and facilitators of the BC-Predict intervention and on the wider implementation of risk-based screening after BC-Predict was implemented in their screening site.MethodsFourteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with HCPs working across the breast screening pathway at three NHSBSP sites that implemented BC-Predict. Thematic analysis interpreted the data.ResultsThree pre-decided themes were produced. (1) Acceptability of risk-based screening: risk-stratification was perceived as a beneficial step for both services and women. HCPs across the pathway reported low burden of running the BC-Predict trial on routine tasks, but with some residual concerns; (2) Barriers to implementation: comprised capacity constraints of services including the inadequacy of current IT systems to manage women with different risk profiles and, (3) Facilitators to implementation: included the continuation of stakeholder consultation across the pathway to inform implementation and need for dedicated risk screening admin staff, a push for mammography staff recruitment and guidance for screening services. Telephone helplines, integrating primary care, and supporting access for all language needs was emphasised.ConclusionRisk-stratified breast screening was viewed as a progressive step providing it does not worsen inequalities for women. Implementation of risk-stratified breast screening requires staff to be reassured that there will be systems in place to support implementation and that it will not further burden their workload. Next steps require a comprehensive assessment of the resource needed for risk-stratification versus current resource availability, upgrades to screening IT and building screening infrastructure. The role of primary care needs to be determined. Simplification and clarification of risk-based screening pathways is needed to support HCPs agency and facilitate implementation. Forthcoming evidence from ongoing randomised controlled trials assessing effectiveness of breast cancer risk-stratification will also determine implementation.

Project description: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.

Project description:BackgroundThe shortage of healthcare professionals (HCP) negatively affects health services in rural areas in many parts of the world, as is the case in South Africa. Innovative programs designed to improve the recruitment strategies for health system in a rural area are essential. They need support with a scholarship and mentorship programme for young people from rural areas to study for health science degrees, with the aim that they would take up a post at the hospital in their community, once qualified. This paper reports the perceptions and experiences of the students and graduates sponsored by the foundation, and those of managers from the facilities where the students were ultimately placed, in order to gauge whether such a programme can make a sustainable contribution to address the shortage of health personnel in rural areas and to what extent this is happening.MethodsThe authors used qualitative methods, combining semi-structured in-depth interviews and focus groups and the data were analyzed thematically.ResultsThe results provide information on students interviewed who appreciated the financial and socio-emotional support that they received. On the other hand, graduates value the availability of jobs in their home community on completion of their studies. The managers reported the success of the programme in increasing the number of healthcare personnel at the hospitals, and the increased range of available medical services. Since the graduates are familiar with the language and culture of their patients the managers considered that they are better able to assist them.ConclusionsThe system was well thought-out and achieved its goal of improving health services in an underdeveloped rural area of South Africa. More could be achieved if other government services in the area were simultaneously improved and if the system were replicated elsewhere. The students and graduates from rural areas are involved on sustaining health services in rural areas while rural managers support the programme and make suggestions for improvement and to promote the program in other regions.

Project description:BackgroundRoutine health check-ups may improve adolescent health, but global guidelines are lacking. Phase 1 of the WHO-coordinated Y-Check Research Programme involved three African cities to co-produce a programme of adolescent health check-ups. We describe a systematic approach to developing a routine adolescent health check-ups and wellbeing programme (Y-Check) to contribute evidence on whether adolescent health check-ups should be part of routine health services in Ghana.MethodsY-Check Phase 1 was conducted in four communities in Cape Coast Ghana, over two stages using a variety of methods: (a) needs assessment and landscape analysis on the health of adolescents (existing policies/programmes, school system, adolescent health conditions) was conducted through desk-review and interviews with key informants to identify the potential content, delivery strategy and settings for adolescent health check-ups in this context; (b) co-designing the Y-Check intervention framework through person-centred participatory workshops and a consensus-building workshop with multiple stakeholders, including adolescents (10-19 years) and their parents. The study was conducted between January 2020 and October 2020.ResultsThe Y-Check intervention consists of two check-ups with content that is tailored to the needs of younger adolescents and older adolescents; delivered at both school and community settings by a team of trained staff in multiple steps involving up to four stations. Y-Check includes a referral system for adolescents with any problems that cannot be investigated or treated on-the-spot.ConclusionsOur systematic approach to co-producing Y-Check has resulted in an intervention whose content and structure is determined by the local context, and which was adjudged by multiple stakeholders to be likely to be both useful and acceptable, and which builds on best practice. As a logical next step, the Y-Check will be subjected to pilot testing and implementation research to rigorously evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, coverage, yield of previously undiagnosed conditions and cost of these health check-ups.

Dataset Information

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

Objective

Design

Data sources

Inclusion criteria

Results

Conclusions

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets