Dataset Information

Using general practitioners to recruit individuals with low socioeconomic position to preventive health checks is feasible: a cross sectional study.

ABSTRACT: Objective: To test whether demographic and health-related characteristics are associated with non-attendance of preventive health checks offered to individuals with low levels of education using proactive recruitment by the general practitioners. Design: A cross-sectional study. Setting: 32 general practice clinics in Copenhagen, Denmark. Subjects: A total of 549 individuals aged 45-64, with low levels of education, enrolled in the intervention group of a randomised controlled trial on preventive health checks offered by general practitioner. Main outcome measures: Non-attendance of the preventive health checks. Methods: (i) Descriptive characteristics of attendees and non-attendees and (ii) crude and adjusted multi-level logistic regression to examine associations of individual characteristics with non-attendance of preventive health checks. Results: Overall, 33% did not attend the prescheduled preventive health checks at their general practitioners. Non-attendees were more likely to live without a partner, be of non-Western origin, be daily smokers, have poor self-rated health, have higher pulmonary symptoms score, have increased level of stress, have low levels of self-efficacy, have metabolic risk factors or non-communicable diseases and have had no contact with their general practitioner within the past year. Conclusion: The findings suggest that, it is feasible to use general practitioners for recruiting individuals for preventive health checks. However, even in a trial targeting individuals with low levels of education, there are differences between attendees and non-attendees, with a more adverse health behaviour profile and worse health status observed among the non-attendees. KEY POINTS Current awareness • Non-attendance of preventive health checks offered to the general population is associated with low socioeconomic position and adverse health behaviours. Main statements • It is feasible to use general practitioners proactively in recruitment to preventive health checks offered to individuals with low socioeconomic positions. • In a trial targeting individuals with low levels of education, there were differences between attendees and non-attendees. • Non-attendance was associated with daily smoking, poor self-rated health, high stress and no contact with the general practitioner within the last year.

SUBMITTER: Kamstrup-Larsen N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6713093 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSystematic preventive health checks in primary care have been introduced in several countries. The Danish Health Service does not provide this service, but health checks are nevertheless being conducted unsystematically. Very little is known about the GPs' experience with this service.The purpose of our study is to describe GPs' attitudes towards and concerns about providing preventive health checks and to describe their experiences with the health checks that they provide in daily practice.MethodsA qualitative descriptive study was conducted based on three semi-structured focus group interviews with 16 GPs from Central Region, Denmark. The focus group interviews took place at the Department of Public Health, Section for General Practice, Aarhus University in November 2010.ResultsWe found that the participating GPs all conducted some kind of preventive health checks, but also that there was great diversity in the content. The GPs were somewhat ambivalent towards health checks. Many GPs found the service beneficial for the patients. Concurrently, they had reservations about promoting ill-health, they questioned whether the health checks were a core mission of primary care, and they were concerned whether the health checks would benefit the "right" patients. The GPs felt a need for further documentation of the benefits for the patients before a possible future implementation of systematic health checks. Some GPs found that health checks could be performed in other settings than general practice.ConclusionsOur study revealed that health checks are performed differently. Their quality differs, and the GPs perform the health check based on their personal attitude towards this service and prevention in general. Our analysis suggests that the doctors are basically uncertain about the best approach. Our study also uncovers the GPs' reservations about inducing negative psychological reactions and decreased well-being among the health check participants. Further studies are needed to disclose where these concerns emerge.

Project description:BackgroundThis 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionWe 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 registrationClinical Trials NCT01979107 ; October 25, 2013.

Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of health checks aimed at the general population is disputable. However, it is not clear whether health checks aimed at certain groups at high risk may reduce adverse health behaviour and identify persons with metabolic risk factors and non-communicable diseases (NCDs).ObjectivesTo assess the effect of general practice-based health checks on health behaviour and incidence on NCDs in individuals with low socioeconomic position.MethodsIndividuals with no formal education beyond lower secondary school and aged 45-64 years were randomly assigned to the intervention group of a preventive health check or to control group of usual care in a 1:1 allocation. Randomisation was stratified by gender and 5-year age group. Due to the real-life setting, blinding of participants was only possible in the control group. Effects were analysed as intention to treat (ITT) and per protocol. The trial was undertaken in 32 general practice units in Copenhagen, Denmark.InterventionInvitation to a prescheduled preventive health check from the general practitioner (GP) followed by a health consultation and an offer of follow-up with health risk behaviour change or preventive medical treatment, if necessary.Primary outcome measuresSmoking status at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes included status in other health behaviours such as alcohol consumption, physical activity and body mass index (measured by self-administered questionnaire), as well as incidence of metabolic risk factors and NCDs such as hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism and depression (drawn from national healthcare registries).Results1104 participants were included in the study. For the primary outcome, 710 participants were included in the per protocol analysis, excluding individuals who did not attend the health check, and 1104 participants were included in the ITT analysis. At 12-month follow-up, 37% were daily smokers in the intervention group and 37% in the control group (ORs=0.99, 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.30). No difference in health behaviour nor in the incidence of metabolic risk factors and NCDs between the intervention and control group were found. Side effects were comparable across the two groups.ConclusionThe lack of effectiveness may be due to low intensity of intervention, a high prevalence of metabolic risk factors and NCDs among the participants at baseline as well as a high number of contacts with the GPs in general or to the fact that general practices are not an effective setting for prevention.Trial registration numberNCT01979107.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:We previously identified that general practitioners (GPs) in French-speaking regions of Europe had a variable uptake of common preventive recommendations. In this study, we describe GPs' reports of how they put different preventive recommendations into practice. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:Cross-sectional study conducted in 2015 in Switzerland and France. 3400 randomly selected GPs were asked to complete a postal (n=1100) or online (n=2300) questionnaire. GPs who exclusively practiced complementary and alternative medicine were not eligible for the study. 764 GPs (response rate: postal 47%, online 11%) returned the questionnaire (428 in Switzerland and 336 in France). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:We investigated how the GPs performed five preventive practices (screening for dyslipidaemia, colorectal and prostate cancer, identification of hazardous alcohol consumption and brief intervention), examining which age group they selected, the screening frequency, the test they used, whether they favoured shared decision for prostate cancer screening and their definition of hazardous alcohol use. RESULTS:A large variability was observed in the way in which GPs provide these practices. 41% reported screening yearly for cholesterol, starting and stopping at variable ages. 82% did not use any test to identify hazardous drinking. The most common responses for defining hazardous drinking were, for men, ?21?drinks/week (24%) and ?4?drinks/occasion for binge drinking (20%), and for women, ?14?drinks/week (28%) and ?3?drinks/occasion (21%). Screening for colorectal cancer, mainly with colonoscopy in Switzerland (86%) and stool-based tests in France (93%), was provided every 10 years in Switzerland (65%) and 2?years in France (91%) to patients between 50 years (87%) and 75 years (67%). Prostate cancer screening, usually with shared decision (82%), was provided yearly (62%) to patients between 50 years (74%) and 75-80 years (32%-34%). CONCLUSIONS:The large diversity in the way these practices are provided needs to be addressed, as it could be related to some misunderstandingof the current guidelines, to barriers for guideline uptake or, more likely, to the absence of agreement between the various recommendations.

Dataset Information

Using general practitioners to recruit individuals with low socioeconomic position to preventive health checks is feasible: a cross sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets