Dataset Information

Evaluation of the uptake and delivery of the NHS Health Check programme in England, using primary care data from 9.5 million people: a cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To describe the uptake and outputs of the National Health Service Health Check (NHSHC) programme in England. DESIGN:Observational study. SETTING:National primary care data extracted directly by NHS Digital from 90% of general practices (GP) in England. PARTICIPANTS:Individuals aged 40-74 years, invited to or completing a NHSHC between 2012 and 2017, defined using primary care Read codes. INTERVENTION:The 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. RESULTS:During 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. CONCLUSION:This 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.

SUBMITTER: Patel R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7646358 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of the uptake and delivery of the NHS Health Check programme in England, using primary care data from 9.5 million people: a cross-sectional study.

Patel Riyaz R Barnard Sharmani S Thompson Katherine K Lagord Catherine C Clegg Emma E Worrall Robert R Evans Tim T Carter Slade S Flowers Julian J Roberts Dave D Nuttall Michaela M Samani Nilesh J NJ Robson John J Kearney Matt M Deanfield John J Waterall Jamie J

BMJ open 20201105 11

<h4>Objectives</h4>To describe the uptake and outputs of the National Health Service Health Check (NHSHC) programme in England.<h4>Design</h4>Observational study.<h4>Setting</h4>National primary care data extracted directly by NHS Digital from 90% of general practices (GP) in England.<h4>Participants</h4>Individuals aged 40-74 years, invited to or completing a NHSHC between 2012 and 2017, defined using primary care Read codes.<h4>Intervention</h4>The NHSHC, a structured assessment of non-communi ...[more]

PMID: 33154064

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: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: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: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: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:INTRODUCTION:Half of all deaths in custody are due to natural causes, the most common being cardiovascular disease (CVD). National Health Service Healthchecks should be available to all eligible prisoners; it is not clear who receives them. Mental health issues are common in prisoners and may affect how healthcare interventions should be delivered. Current policy is to offer Healthchecks to those serving over 2 years in prison. OBJECTIVES, METHODS, SETTING AND DESIGN:An observational cross-sectional survey in six male prisons in England between September 2017 and January 2019 in prisoners aged 35-74 to identify who was eligible for a Healthcheck and compare CVD risk data with those that were not, and factors associated with uptake. OUTCOME MEASURES:Characteristics of those accepting a Healthcheck were compared with those declining. Assessments of anxiety and depression were compared with CVD risk factors. RESULTS:1207 prisoners completed a Healthcheck. 21.8% of prisoners were ineligible due to existing comorbidities. 76.4% of those invited took up a Healthcheck, and of those, 12.1% were found to have new significant CVD comorbidity. CVD risk was similar to community levels but this population was 10 years younger. Definite case-level depression or anxiety was present in 20.7% and 18.0%, respectively, of participants. An association was found between ethnicity and those invited (p=0.023, ?=0.1) and accepting (p=0.008, ?=0.1) a Healthcheck. 9.7% of prisoners serving less than 2 years had CVD risk scores of 10% or more, and had similar CVD risk profiles but much higher levels of anxiety (p<0.001, ?=0.2) or depression (p=0.009, ?=0.2) than those serving 2 years or more. CONCLUSION:Cardiovascular risk was comparable with community rates and in some prisons, much higher. Rates of anxiety and depression were high. The national policy for selecting prisoners for Healthchecks may leave many high-risk prisoners without appropriate cardiovascular preventative assessments.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS-DPP) is a nine-month, group-based behavioural intervention for adults in England at risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. Four independent providers were commissioned to deliver versions of the NHS-DPP, in line with NHS England specifications. This observational study maps NHS-DPP delivery in routine practice against the NHS specification, and compares service delivery with observed patient experiences. METHODS:Researchers observed service delivery across eight complete NHS-DPP courses (118 sessions, median 14 sessions per course), consenting 455 participants (36 staff, 398 patients, 21 accompanying persons). Key features of NHS-DPP delivery were described using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) framework. Researchers wrote detailed field notes during each session, including observations of patient experience. Field notes were content analysed; instances of positive and negative experiences were labelled and grouped into categories. Researchers used a novel method of comparing observed patient experiences to variations in programme delivery. RESULTS:Delivery broadly followed NHS England's specification and the plans set out by providers. Deviations included the scheduling and larger group sizes in some sessions. There was variation in the type and format of activities delivered by providers. Positive patient experiences included engagement, satisfaction with the programme, good within-group relationships and reported behavioural changes. Negative experiences included poor scheduling, large groups, and dissatisfaction with the venue. Where more interactive and visual activities were delivered in smaller groups of 10-15 people with good rapport, there were generally more instances of positive patient experiences, and where there were structural issues such as problems with the scheduling of sessions, poor venues and inadequate resources, there tended to be more negative patient experiences. CONCLUSIONS:Addressing issues that we have identified as being linked to negative experiences with the NHS-DPP could increase uptake, reduce patient drop-out and increase the overall effectiveness of the programme. In particular, modifying structural aspects of the NHS-DPP (e.g. reliable session scheduling, reducing group sizes, enough session resources) and increasing interaction appear particularly promising for improving these outcomes.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of the uptake and delivery of the NHS Health Check programme in England, using primary care data from 9.5 million people: a cross-sectional study.

Publications

Evaluation of the uptake and delivery of the NHS Health Check programme in England, using primary care data from 9.5 million people: a cross-sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets