Cargando…

Understanding what happens to attendees after an NHS Health Check: a realist review

OBJECTIVES: The NHS Health Check offers adults aged 40–74 an assessment of their risk of developing cardiovascular disease. Attendees should be offered appropriate clinical or behavioural interventions to help them to manage or reduce these risks. This project focused on understanding variation in t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Duddy, Claire, Gadsby, Erica, Hibberd, Vivienne, Krska, Janet, Wong, Geoff
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9660666/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36357002
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064237
_version_ 1784830433867857920
author Duddy, Claire
Gadsby, Erica
Hibberd, Vivienne
Krska, Janet
Wong, Geoff
author_facet Duddy, Claire
Gadsby, Erica
Hibberd, Vivienne
Krska, Janet
Wong, Geoff
author_sort Duddy, Claire
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The NHS Health Check offers adults aged 40–74 an assessment of their risk of developing cardiovascular disease. Attendees should be offered appropriate clinical or behavioural interventions to help them to manage or reduce these risks. This project focused on understanding variation in the advice and support offered to Health Check attendees. DESIGN: We conducted a realist review, assembling a diverse body of literature via database searches (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, HMIC, Web of Science) and other search methods, and synthesised data extracted from documents using a realist logic of analysis. Our aim was to develop an understanding of contexts affecting delivery of the NHS Health Check and the underlying mechanisms producing outcomes related to the offer for attendees post-Check. RESULTS: Our findings demonstrate differences in how NHS Health Check commissioners, providers and attendees understand the primary purpose of the programme. A focus on screening for disease can produce an emphasis on high-volume delivery in primary care. When delivery models are organised around behavioural approaches to risk reduction, more emphasis is placed on advice, and referrals to ‘lifestyle services’. However, constrained funding and competing priorities for providers limit what can be delivered within the programme’s remit. Attendees’ experiences and responses to the programme are affected by how the programme is delivered, and by the difficulty of incorporating its outputs into their lives. CONCLUSIONS: The remit of the NHS Health Check should be reviewed with consideration of what can be effectively delivered within existing resources. Variation in delivery may be appropriate to meet local needs, but differences in how the programme’s primary purpose is understood contribute to a ‘postcode lottery’ in post-Check advice and support. Our findings underline existing concerns that the programme may generate inequitable outcomes and raise questions about whether it can deliver positive outcomes for the majority of attendees. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020163822
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9660666
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96606662022-11-15 Understanding what happens to attendees after an NHS Health Check: a realist review Duddy, Claire Gadsby, Erica Hibberd, Vivienne Krska, Janet Wong, Geoff BMJ Open Public Health OBJECTIVES: The NHS Health Check offers adults aged 40–74 an assessment of their risk of developing cardiovascular disease. Attendees should be offered appropriate clinical or behavioural interventions to help them to manage or reduce these risks. This project focused on understanding variation in the advice and support offered to Health Check attendees. DESIGN: We conducted a realist review, assembling a diverse body of literature via database searches (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, HMIC, Web of Science) and other search methods, and synthesised data extracted from documents using a realist logic of analysis. Our aim was to develop an understanding of contexts affecting delivery of the NHS Health Check and the underlying mechanisms producing outcomes related to the offer for attendees post-Check. RESULTS: Our findings demonstrate differences in how NHS Health Check commissioners, providers and attendees understand the primary purpose of the programme. A focus on screening for disease can produce an emphasis on high-volume delivery in primary care. When delivery models are organised around behavioural approaches to risk reduction, more emphasis is placed on advice, and referrals to ‘lifestyle services’. However, constrained funding and competing priorities for providers limit what can be delivered within the programme’s remit. Attendees’ experiences and responses to the programme are affected by how the programme is delivered, and by the difficulty of incorporating its outputs into their lives. CONCLUSIONS: The remit of the NHS Health Check should be reviewed with consideration of what can be effectively delivered within existing resources. Variation in delivery may be appropriate to meet local needs, but differences in how the programme’s primary purpose is understood contribute to a ‘postcode lottery’ in post-Check advice and support. Our findings underline existing concerns that the programme may generate inequitable outcomes and raise questions about whether it can deliver positive outcomes for the majority of attendees. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020163822 BMJ Publishing Group 2022-11-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9660666/ /pubmed/36357002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064237 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Public Health
Duddy, Claire
Gadsby, Erica
Hibberd, Vivienne
Krska, Janet
Wong, Geoff
Understanding what happens to attendees after an NHS Health Check: a realist review
title Understanding what happens to attendees after an NHS Health Check: a realist review
title_full Understanding what happens to attendees after an NHS Health Check: a realist review
title_fullStr Understanding what happens to attendees after an NHS Health Check: a realist review
title_full_unstemmed Understanding what happens to attendees after an NHS Health Check: a realist review
title_short Understanding what happens to attendees after an NHS Health Check: a realist review
title_sort understanding what happens to attendees after an nhs health check: a realist review
topic Public Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9660666/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36357002
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064237
work_keys_str_mv AT duddyclaire understandingwhathappenstoattendeesafterannhshealthcheckarealistreview
AT gadsbyerica understandingwhathappenstoattendeesafterannhshealthcheckarealistreview
AT hibberdvivienne understandingwhathappenstoattendeesafterannhshealthcheckarealistreview
AT krskajanet understandingwhathappenstoattendeesafterannhshealthcheckarealistreview
AT wonggeoff understandingwhathappenstoattendeesafterannhshealthcheckarealistreview