Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Understanding what happens to attendees after an NHS Health Check: a realist review.
Duddy, Claire; Gadsby, Erica; Hibberd, Vivienne; Krska, Janet; Wong, Geoff.
  • Duddy C; Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK claire.duddy@phc.ox.ac.uk.
  • Gadsby E; Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
  • Hibberd V; Public Involvement in Pharmacy Studies Group, University of Greenwich Medway School of Pharmacy, Chatham, UK.
  • Krska J; Medway School of Pharmacy, Universities of Greenwich and Kent, Chatham, UK.
  • Wong G; Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
BMJ Open ; 12(11): e064237, 2022 11 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2152996
ABSTRACT

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.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: State Medicine / Cardiovascular Diseases Type of study: Prognostic study / Qualitative research / Randomized controlled trials / Reviews Limits: Adult / Humans Language: English Journal: BMJ Open Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Bmjopen-2022-064237

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: State Medicine / Cardiovascular Diseases Type of study: Prognostic study / Qualitative research / Randomized controlled trials / Reviews Limits: Adult / Humans Language: English Journal: BMJ Open Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Bmjopen-2022-064237