» Articles » PMID: 30791884

Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Uptake of NHS Health Check in Response to Standard Letters, Risk-personalised Letters and Telephone Invitations

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Public Health
Date 2019 Feb 23
PMID 30791884
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Letter and Telephone Reminders in Promoting the Use of Specific Health Guidance in an At-Risk Population for Metabolic Syndrome in Japan: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Murayama H, Shimada S, Morito K, Maeda H, Takahashi Y Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023; 20(5).

PMID: 36900792 PMC: 10001113. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20053784.


NHS Health Check programme: a rapid review update.

Tanner L, Kenny R, Still M, Ling J, Pearson F, Thompson K BMJ Open. 2022; 12(2):e052832.

PMID: 35172998 PMC: 8852663. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052832.


Increasing uptake of NHS Health Checks: a randomised controlled trial using GP computer prompts.

Gold N, Tan K, Sherlock J, Watson R, Chadborn T Br J Gen Pract. 2021; 71(710):e693-e700.

PMID: 34048362 PMC: 8279658. DOI: 10.3399/BJGP.2020.0887.


Involving people with type 2 diabetes in facilitating participation in a cardiovascular screening programme.

Dahl M, Sondergaard S, Diederichsen A, Sondergaard J, Thilsing T, Lindholt J Health Expect. 2021; 24(3):880-891.

PMID: 33761174 PMC: 8235888. DOI: 10.1111/hex.13228.


Effects of a Co-Design-Based Invitation Strategy on Participation in a Preventive Health Check Program: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Thilsing T, Larsen L, Larrabee Sonderlund A, Andreassen S, Christensen J, Svensson N JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2021; 7(3):e25617.

PMID: 33688836 PMC: 7991992. DOI: 10.2196/25617.


References
1.
Edwards A, Elwyn G, Covey J, Matthews E, Pill R . Presenting risk information--a review of the effects of "framing" and other manipulations on patient outcomes. J Health Commun. 2001; 6(1):61-82. DOI: 10.1080/10810730150501413. View

2.
Jepson R, Forbes C, Sowden A, Lewis R . Increasing informed uptake and non-uptake of screening: evidence from a systematic review. Health Expect. 2001; 4(2):116-26. PMC: 5060058. DOI: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00143.x. View

3.
Barratt A, Trevena L, Davey H, McCaffery K . Use of decision aids to support informed choices about screening. BMJ. 2004; 329(7464):507-10. PMC: 515211. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.329.7464.507. View

4.
Albada A, Ausems M, Bensing J, van Dulmen S . Tailored information about cancer risk and screening: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2009; 77(2):155-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.03.005. View

5.
Collins G, Altman D . An independent and external validation of QRISK2 cardiovascular disease risk score: a prospective open cohort study. BMJ. 2010; 340:c2442. PMC: 2869403. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c2442. View