Cargando…
Randomised controlled trial comparing uptake of NHS Health Check in response to standard letters, risk-personalised letters and telephone invitations
BACKGROUND: NHS 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. Telep...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6385450/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30791884 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6540-8 |
_version_ | 1783397206915547136 |
---|---|
author | Gidlow, Christopher J. Ellis, Naomi J. Riley, Victoria Chadborn, Tim Bunten, Amanda Iqbal, Zafar Ahmed, Aliko Fisher, Alistair Sugden, David Clark-Carter, David |
author_facet | Gidlow, Christopher J. Ellis, Naomi J. Riley, Victoria Chadborn, Tim Bunten, Amanda Iqbal, Zafar Ahmed, Aliko Fisher, Alistair Sugden, David Clark-Carter, David |
author_sort | Gidlow, Christopher J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: NHS 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. METHODS: HEalth 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. RESULTS: In 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. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone 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 REGISTRATION: Registration number: ISRCTN15840751 date of registration: 24/10/2017. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-019-6540-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6385450 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-63854502019-03-04 Randomised controlled trial comparing uptake of NHS Health Check in response to standard letters, risk-personalised letters and telephone invitations Gidlow, Christopher J. Ellis, Naomi J. Riley, Victoria Chadborn, Tim Bunten, Amanda Iqbal, Zafar Ahmed, Aliko Fisher, Alistair Sugden, David Clark-Carter, David BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: NHS 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. METHODS: HEalth 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. RESULTS: In 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. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone 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 REGISTRATION: Registration number: ISRCTN15840751 date of registration: 24/10/2017. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-019-6540-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-02-21 /pmc/articles/PMC6385450/ /pubmed/30791884 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6540-8 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Gidlow, Christopher J. Ellis, Naomi J. Riley, Victoria Chadborn, Tim Bunten, Amanda Iqbal, Zafar Ahmed, Aliko Fisher, Alistair Sugden, David Clark-Carter, David Randomised controlled trial comparing uptake of NHS Health Check in response to standard letters, risk-personalised letters and telephone invitations |
title | Randomised controlled trial comparing uptake of NHS Health Check in response to standard letters, risk-personalised letters and telephone invitations |
title_full | Randomised controlled trial comparing uptake of NHS Health Check in response to standard letters, risk-personalised letters and telephone invitations |
title_fullStr | Randomised controlled trial comparing uptake of NHS Health Check in response to standard letters, risk-personalised letters and telephone invitations |
title_full_unstemmed | Randomised controlled trial comparing uptake of NHS Health Check in response to standard letters, risk-personalised letters and telephone invitations |
title_short | Randomised controlled trial comparing uptake of NHS Health Check in response to standard letters, risk-personalised letters and telephone invitations |
title_sort | randomised controlled trial comparing uptake of nhs health check in response to standard letters, risk-personalised letters and telephone invitations |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6385450/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30791884 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6540-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gidlowchristopherj randomisedcontrolledtrialcomparinguptakeofnhshealthcheckinresponsetostandardlettersriskpersonalisedlettersandtelephoneinvitations AT ellisnaomij randomisedcontrolledtrialcomparinguptakeofnhshealthcheckinresponsetostandardlettersriskpersonalisedlettersandtelephoneinvitations AT rileyvictoria randomisedcontrolledtrialcomparinguptakeofnhshealthcheckinresponsetostandardlettersriskpersonalisedlettersandtelephoneinvitations AT chadborntim randomisedcontrolledtrialcomparinguptakeofnhshealthcheckinresponsetostandardlettersriskpersonalisedlettersandtelephoneinvitations AT buntenamanda randomisedcontrolledtrialcomparinguptakeofnhshealthcheckinresponsetostandardlettersriskpersonalisedlettersandtelephoneinvitations AT iqbalzafar randomisedcontrolledtrialcomparinguptakeofnhshealthcheckinresponsetostandardlettersriskpersonalisedlettersandtelephoneinvitations AT ahmedaliko randomisedcontrolledtrialcomparinguptakeofnhshealthcheckinresponsetostandardlettersriskpersonalisedlettersandtelephoneinvitations AT fisheralistair randomisedcontrolledtrialcomparinguptakeofnhshealthcheckinresponsetostandardlettersriskpersonalisedlettersandtelephoneinvitations AT sugdendavid randomisedcontrolledtrialcomparinguptakeofnhshealthcheckinresponsetostandardlettersriskpersonalisedlettersandtelephoneinvitations AT clarkcarterdavid randomisedcontrolledtrialcomparinguptakeofnhshealthcheckinresponsetostandardlettersriskpersonalisedlettersandtelephoneinvitations |