Dataset Information

Evaluating the effectiveness of the NHS Health Check programme in South England: a quasi-randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Kennedy O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6756325 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluating the effectiveness of the NHS Health Check programme in South England: a quasi-randomised controlled trial.

Kennedy Oliver O Su Fangzhong F Pears Robert R Walmsley Emily E Roderick Paul P

BMJ open 20190920 9

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate uptake, risk factor detection and management from the National Health Service (NHS) Health Check (HC).<h4>Design</h4>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.<h4>Setting</h4>151 general practices in Hampshire, England, UK.<h4>Participants</h4>366 005 participants born 1 April 1940-31 March 1976 eligible for an NHS HC.<h4 ...[more]

PMID: 31542745

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:BackgroundInterventions are needed to reduce poor perinatal health. We trained community health workers (CHWs) as home visitors to address maternal/infant risks.MethodsIn a cluster randomised controlled trial in Cape Town townships, neighbourhoods were randomised within matched pairs to 1) the control, healthcare at clinics (n = 12 neighbourhoods; n = 594 women), or 2) a home visiting intervention by CBW trained in cognitive-behavioural strategies to address health risks (by the Philani Maternal, Child Health and Nutrition Programme), in addition to clinic care (n = 12 neighbourhoods; n = 644 women). Participants were assessed during pregnancy (2% refusal) and 92% were reassessed at two weeks post-birth, 88% at six months and 84% at 18 months later. We analysed 32 measures of maternal/infant well-being over the 18 month follow-up period using longitudinal random effects regressions. A binomial test for correlated outcomes evaluated overall effectiveness over time. The 18 month post-birth assessment outcomes also were examined alone and as a function of the number of home visits received.ResultsBenefits were found on 7 of 32 measures of outcomes, resulting in significant overall benefits for the intervention compared to the control when using the binomial test (p = 0.008); nevertheless, no effects were observed when only the 18 month outcomes were analyzed. Benefits on individual outcomes were related to the number of home visits received. Among women living with HIV, intervention mothers were more likely to implement the PMTCT regimens, use condoms during all sexual episodes (OR = 1.25; p = 0.014), have infants with healthy weight-for-age measurements (OR = 1.42; p = 0.045), height-for-age measurements (OR = 1.13, p<0.001), breastfeed exclusively for six months (OR = 3.59; p<0.001), and breastfeed longer (OR = 3.08; p<0.001). Number of visits was positively associated with infant birth weight ≥2500 grams (OR = 1.07; p = 0.012), healthy head-circumference-for-age measurements at 6 months (OR = 1.09, p = 0.017), and improved cognitive development at 18 months (OR = 1.02, p = 0.048).ConclusionsHome visits to neighbourhood mothers by CHWs may be a feasible strategy for enhancing maternal/child outcomes. However, visits likely must extend over several years for persistent benefits.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00996528.

Project description:Background: Aiming to contribute to prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), the National Health Service (NHS) Health Check programme has been implemented across England since 2009. The programme involves cardiovascular risk stratification-at 5-year intervals-of all adults between the ages of 40 and 74 years, excluding any with preexisting vascular conditions (including CVD, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension, among others), and offers treatment to those at high risk. However, the cost-effectiveness and equity of population CVD screening is contested. This study aimed to determine whether the NHS Health Check programme is cost-effective and equitable in a city with high levels of deprivation and CVD.Methods and findings: IMPACTNCD is a dynamic stochastic microsimulation policy model, calibrated to Liverpool demographics, risk factor exposure, and CVD epidemiology. Using local and national data, as well as drawing on health and social care disease costs and health-state utilities, we modelled 5 scenarios from 2017 to 2040: Scenario (A): continuing current implementation of NHS Health Check;Scenario (B): implementation 'targeted' toward areas in the most deprived quintile with increased coverage and uptake;Scenario (C): 'optimal' implementation assuming optimal coverage, uptake, treatment, and lifestyle change;Scenario (D): scenario A combined with structural population-wide interventions targeting unhealthy diet and smoking;Scenario (E): scenario B combined with the structural interventions as above. We compared all scenarios with a counterfactual of no-NHS Health Check. Compared with no-NHS Health Check, the model estimated cumulative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (discounted £/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) to be 11,000 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] -270,000 to 320,000) for scenario A, 1,500 (-91,000 to 100,000) for scenario B, -2,400 (-6,500 to 5,700) for scenario C, -5,100 (-7,400 to -3,200) for scenario D, and -5,000 (-7,400 to -3,100) for scenario E. Overall, scenario A is unlikely to become cost-effective or equitable, and scenario B is likely to become cost-effective by 2040 and equitable by 2039. Scenario C is likely to become cost-effective by 2030 and cost-saving by 2040. Scenarios D and E are likely to be cost-saving by 2021 and 2023, respectively, and equitable by 2025. The main limitation of the analysis is that we explicitly modelled CVD and diabetes mellitus only.Conclusions: According to our analysis of the situation in Liverpool, current NHS Health Check implementation appears neither equitable nor cost-effective. Optimal implementation is likely to be cost-saving but not equitable, while targeted implementation is likely to be both. Adding structural policies targeting cardiovascular risk factors could substantially improve equity and generate cost savings.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Evaluation of the demonstrator phase and first wave roll-out of the National Health Service (NHS) Diabetes Prevention Programme (DPP) in England. To examine: (1) intervention design, provision and fidelity assessment procedures; (2) risk assessment and recruitment pathways and (3) data collection for monitoring and evaluation. To provide recommendations informing decision makers on programme quality, improvements and future evaluation. DESIGN:We reviewed programme documents, mapping against the NHS DPP specification and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) public health guideline: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) prevention in people at high risk (PH38), conducted qualitative research using individual interviews and focus group discussions with stakeholders and examined recruitment, fidelity and data collection procedures. SETTING:Seven NHS DPP demonstrator sites and, subsequently, 27 first wave areas across England. INTERVENTIONS:Intensive behavioural intervention with weight loss, diet and physical activity goals. The national programme specifies at least 13 sessions over 9?months, delivered face to face to groups of 15-20 adults with non-diabetic hyperglycaemia, mainly recruited from primary care and NHS Health Checks. PARTICIPANTS:Participants for qualitative research were purposively sampled to provide a spread of stakeholder experience. Documents for review were provided via the NHS DPP Management Group. FINDINGS:The NHS DPP specification reflected current evidence with a clear framework for service provision. Providers, with national capacity to deliver, supplied intervention plans compliant with this framework. Stakeholders highlighted limitations in fidelity assessment and recruitment and retention challenges, especially in reach and equity, that could adversely impact on implementation. Risk assessment for first wave eligibility differed from NICE guidance. CONCLUSIONS:The NHS DPP provides an evidence-based behavioural intervention for prevention of T2D in adults at high risk, with capacity to deliver nationally. Framework specification allows for balance between consistency and contextual variation in intervention delivery, with session details devolved to providers. Limitations in fidelity assurance, data collection procedures and recruitment issues could adversely impact on intervention effectiveness and restrict evaluation.

Project description:ObjectivesTo describe the uptake and outputs of the National Health Service Health Check (NHSHC) programme in England.DesignObservational study.SettingNational primary care data extracted directly by NHS Digital from 90% of general practices (GP) in England.ParticipantsIndividuals aged 40-74 years, invited to or completing a NHSHC between 2012 and 2017, defined using primary care Read codes.InterventionThe NHSHC, a structured assessment of non-communicable disease risk factors and 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, with recommendations for behavioural change support and therapeutic interventions.ResultsDuring the 5-year cycle, 9 694 979 individuals were offered an NHSHC and 5 102 758 (52.6%) took up the offer. There was geographical variation in uptake between local authorities across England ranging from 25.1% to 84.7%. Invitation methods changed over time to incorporate greater digitalisation, opportunistic delivery and delivery by third-party providers.The population offered an NHSHC resembled the English population in ethnicity and deprivation characteristics. Attendees were more likely to be older and women, but were similar in terms of ethnicity and deprivation, compared with non-attendees. Among attendees, risk factor prevalence reflected population survey estimates for England. Where a CVD risk score was documented, 25.9% had a 10-year CVD risk ≥10%, of which 20.3% were prescribed a statin. Advice, information and referrals were coded as delivered to over 2.5 million individuals identified to have risk factors.ConclusionThis national analysis of the NHSHC programme, using primary care data from over 9.5 million individuals offered a check, reveals an uptake rate of over 50% and no significant evidence of inequity by ethnicity or deprivation. To maximise the anticipated value of the NHSHC, we suggest continued action is needed to invite more eligible people for a check, reduce geographical variation in uptake, prioritise engagement with non-attendees and promote greater use of evidence-based interventions especially where risk is identified.

Project description:BackgroundEmergency responders are routinely exposed to traumatic critical incidents and other occupational stressors that place them at higher risk of mental ill health compared to the general population. There is some evidence to suggest that resilience training may improve emergency responders' wellbeing and related health outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a tertiary service resilience intervention compared to psychoeducation for improving psychological outcomes among emergency workers.MethodsWe conducted a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Minim software was used to randomly allocate police, ambulance, fire, and search and rescue services personnel, who were not suffering from depression or post-traumatic stress disorder, to Mind's group intervention or to online psychoeducation on a 3:1 basis. The resilience intervention was group-based and included stress management and mindfulness tools for reducing stress. It was delivered by trained staff at nine centres across England in six sessions, one per week for six weeks. The comparison intervention was psychoeducation about stress and mental health delivered online, one module per week for six weeks. Primary outcomes were assessed by self-report and included wellbeing, resilience, self-efficacy, problem-solving, social capital, confidence in managing mental health, and number of days off work due to illness. Follow-up was conducted at three months. Blinding of participants, researchers and outcome assessment was not possible due to the type of interventions.ResultsA total of 430 participants (resilience intervention N = 317; psychoeducation N = 113) were randomised and included in intent-to-treat analyses. Linear Mixed-Effects Models did not show a significant difference between the interventions, at either the post-intervention or follow-up time points, on any outcome measure.ConclusionsThe limited success of this intervention is consistent with the wider literature. Future refinements to the intervention may benefit from targeting predictors of resilience and mental ill health.Trial registrationISRCTN registry, ISRCTN79407277.

Project description:ObjectiveTo 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.DesignA systematic review of surveys and interview studies with a descriptive analysis of quantitative data and thematic synthesis of qualitative data.Data sourcesAn 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 criteriaPrimary research reporting views of commissioners, managers or healthcare professionals on the NHS Health Check programme and its implementation in practice.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionsThe 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.

Project description:BackgroundNHS Health Check is a primary prevention programme offering cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment to adults in England aged 40-74. Uptake remains a challenge and invitation method is a strong predictor of uptake. There is evidence of low uptake when using invitation letters. Telephone invitations might increase uptake, but are not widely used. We explored the potential to improve uptake through personalising letters to patient's CVD risk, and to compare this with generic letters and telephone invitations.MethodsHEalth Check TRial (HECTR) was a three-arm randomised controlled trial in nine general practices in Staffordshire (UK). Eligible patients were randomised to be invited to a NHS Health Check using one of three methods: standard letter (control); telephone invitation; letter personalised to the patient's CVD risk. The primary outcome was attendance/non-attendance. Data were collected on a range of patient- and practice-level factors (e.g., patient socio-demographics, CVD risk, practice size, Health Checks outside usual working hours). Multi-level logistic regression estimated the marginal effects to explore whether invitation method predicted attendance. Invitation costs were collated from practices to estimate cost benefit.ResultsIn total, 4614 patients were included in analysis (mean age 50.2?± 8.0?yr.; 52.4% female). Compared with patients invited by standard letter (30.9%), uptake was significantly higher in those invited by telephone (47.6%, P <?.001), but not personalised letter (31.3%, p =?.812). In multi-level analysis, compared with the standard letter arm, likelihood of attendance was 18 percentage points higher in the telephone arm and 4 percentage points higher in the personalised letter arm. The effect of telephone calls appeared strongest in patients who were younger and had lower CVD risk. We estimated per 1000 patients invited, risk-personalised letters could result in 40 additional attended Health Checks (at no extra cost) and telephone invitations could result in 180 additional Health Checks at an additional cost of £240.ConclusionsTelephone invitations should be advocated to address the substantial deficit between current and required levels of NHS uptake, and could be targeted at younger and lower CVD risk adults. Risk-personalised letters should be explored further in a larger sample of high risk individuals.Trial registrationRegistration number: ISRCTN15840751 date of registration: 24/10/2017.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine if use of point of care testing (POCT) is less costly than laboratory testing to the National Health Service (NHS) in delivering the NHS Health Check (NHSHC) programme in the primary care setting.DesignObservational study and theoretical mathematical model with microcosting approach.SettingWe collected data on NHSHC delivered at nine general practices (seven using POCT; two not using POCT).ParticipantsWe recruited nine general practices offering NHSHC and a pathology services laboratory in the same area.MethodsWe conducted mathematical modelling with permutations in the following fields: provider type (healthcare assistant or nurse), type of test performed (total cholesterol with either lab fasting glucose or HbA1c), cost of consumables and variable uptake rates, including rate of non-response to invite letter and rate of missed [did not attend (DNA)] appointments. We calculated total expected cost (TEC) per 100 invites, number of NHSHC conducted per 100 invites and costs for completed NHSHC for laboratory and POCT-based pathways. A univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to account for uncertainty in the input parameters.Main outcome measuresWe collected data on cost, volume and type of pathology services performed at seven general practices using POCT and a pathology services laboratory. We collected data on response to the NHSHC invitation letter and DNA rates from two general practices.ResultsTEC of using POCT to deliver a routine NHSHC is lower than the laboratory-led pathway with savings of £29 per 100 invited patients up the point of cardiovascular disease risk score presentation. Use of POCT can deliver NHSHC in one sitting, whereas the laboratory pathway offers patients several opportunities to DNA appointment.ConclusionsTEC of using POCT to deliver an NHSHC in the primary care setting is lower than the laboratory-led pathway. Using POCT minimises DNA rates associated with laboratory testing and enables completion of NHSHC in one sitting.

Dataset Information

Evaluating the effectiveness of the NHS Health Check programme in South England: a quasi-randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Evaluating the effectiveness of the NHS Health Check programme in South England: a quasi-randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets