Dataset Information

A qualitative study of cardiovascular disease risk communication in NHS Health Check using different risk calculators: protocol for the RIsk COmmunication in NHS Health Check (RICO) study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

NHS Health Check is a national cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment programme for 40-74 year olds in England, in which practitioners should assess and communicate CVD risk, supported by appropriate risk-management advice and goal-setting. This requires effective communication, to equip patients with knowledge and intention to act. Currently, the QRISK®2 10-year CVD risk score is most common way in which CVD risk is estimated. Newer tools, such as JBS3, allow manipulation of risk factors and can demonstrate the impact of positive actions. However, the use, and relative value, of these tools within CVD risk communication is unknown. We will explore practitioner and patient CVD risk perceptions when using QRISK®2 or JBS3, the associated advice or treatment offered by the practitioner, and patients' responses.

Methods

RIsk COmmunication in NHS Health Check (RICO) is a qualitative study with quantitative process evaluation. Twelve general practices in the West Midlands of England will be randomised to one of two groups: usual practice, in which practitioners use QRISK®2 to assess and communicate CVD risk; intervention, in which practitioners use JBS3. Twenty Health Checks per practice will be video-recorded (n = 240, 120 per group), with patients stratified by age, gender and ethnicity. Post-Health Check, video-stimulated recall (VSR) interviews will be conducted with 48 patients (n = 24 per group) and all practitioners (n = 12-18), using video excerpts to enhance participant recall/reflection. Patient medical record reviews will detect health-protective actions in the first 12-weeks following a Health Check (e.g., lifestyle referrals, statin prescription). Risk communication, patient response and intentions for health-protective behaviours in each group will be explored through thematic analysis of video-recorded Health Checks (using Protection Motivation Theory as a framework) and VSR interviews. Process evaluation will include between-group comparisons of quantitatively coded Health Check content and post-Health Check patient outcomes. Finally, 10 patients with the most positive intentions or behaviours will be selected for case study analysis (using all data sources).

Discussion

This study will produce novel insights about the utility of QRISK®2 and JBS3 to promote patient and practitioner understanding and perception of CVD risk and associated implications for patient intentions with respect to health-protective behaviours (and underlying mechanisms). Recommendations for practice will be developed.

Trial registration

ISRCTN ISRCTN10443908 . Registered 7th February 2017.

SUBMITTER: Gidlow CJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6332912 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesQuantitatively examine the content of National Health Service Health Check (NHSHC), patient-practitioner communication balance and differences when using QRISK2 versus JBS3 cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk calculators.DesignRIsk COmmunication in NHSHC was a qualitative study with quantitative process evaluation, comparing NHSHC using QRISK2 or JBS3. We present data from the quantitative process evaluation.Setting and participantsTwelve general practices in the West Midlands (England) conducted NHSHC using JBS3 or QRISK2 (6/group). Patients were eligible for NHSHC based on national criteria (aged 40-74, no existing cardiovascular-related diagnoses, not taking statins). Recruitment was stratified by patients' age, gender and ethnicity.MethodsVideo recordings of NHSHC were coded, second-by-second, to quantify who was speaking and what was being discussed. Outcomes included consultation duration, practitioner verbal dominance (ratio of practitioner:patient speaking time (pr:pt ratio)) and proportion of time discussing CVD risk, risk factors and risk management.Results173 video-recorded NHSHC were analysed (73 QRISK, 100 JBS3). The sample was 51% women, 83% white British, with approximately equal proportions across age groups. NHSHC duration varied greatly (6.8-38.0 min). Most (60%) lasted less than 20 min. On average, CVD risk was discussed for less than 2 min (9.06%±4.30% of consultation time). There were indications that, compared with NHSHC using JBS3, those with QRISK2 involved less CVD risk discussion (JBS3 M=10.24%, CI: 8.01-12.48 vs QRISK2 M=7.44%, CI: 5.29-9.58) and were more verbally dominated by practitioners (pr:pt ratio JBS3 M=3.21%, CI: 2.44-3.97 vs QRISK2=2.35%, CI: 1.89-2.81). The largest proportion of NHSHC time was spent discussing causal risk factors (M=37.54%, CI: 32.92-42.17).ConclusionsThere was wide variation in NHSHC duration. Many were short and practitioner-dominated, with little time discussing CVD risk. JBS3 appears to extend CVD risk discussion and patient contribution. Qualitative examination of how it is used is necessary to fully understand the potential benefits of these differences.Trial registration numberISRCTN10443908.

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: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: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.