Adam Martin

Delivery and impact of the NHS Health Check in the first 8 years: a systematic review

BACKGROUND Since 2009, all eligible persons in England have been entitled to an NHS Health Check. Uncertainty remains about who attends, and the health-related impacts. AIM To review quantitative evidence on coverage (the proportion of eligible individuals who attend), uptake (proportion of invitees who attend), and impact of NHS Health Checks. DESIGN AND SETTING A systematic review and quantitative data synthesis. Included were studies or data reporting coverage or uptake and studies reporting any health-related impact that used an appropriate comparison group or before- and-after study design. METHOD Eleven databases and additional internet sources were searched to November 2016. RESULTS Twenty-six observational studies and one additional dataset were included. Since 2013, 45.6% of eligible individuals have received a health check. Coverage is higher among older people, those with a family history of coronary heart disease, those living in the most deprived areas, and some ethnic minority groups. Just under half (48.2%) of those invited have taken up the invitation. Data on uptake and impact (especially regarding health-related behaviours) are limited. Uptake is higher in older people and females, but lower in those living in the most deprived areas. Attendance is associated with small increases in disease detection, decreases in modelled cardiovascular disease risk, and increased statin and antihypertensive prescribing. CONCLUSION Published attendance, uptake, and prescribing rates are all lower than originally anticipated, and data on impact are limited, with very few studies reporting the effect of attendance on health-related behaviours. High-quality studies comparing matched attendees and non-attendees and health economic analyses are required.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular and respiratory condition epidemiology in sexual minority women

Objective Sexual minority women (SMW) experience higher chronic disease risk factors than heterosexual counterparts. However, it was unclear if these risks translate into higher physical condition rates. This systematic review evaluates cardiovascular disease (CVD), hypertension, respiratory disease and diabetes mellitus in SMW. Methods A protocol was registered with the Prospero database (CRD42016050299). Included were studies reporting mortality, incidence or prevalence of the above-listed conditions in SMW compared with heterosexual women. Databases (platforms) searched from 2010 to December 2016 were Medline (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (Elsevier), PsycINFO (Ovid), Social Policy and Practice (Ovid), Cochrane CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), Science Citation Index (Web of Science), and CAB Abstracts (Ovid). Search terms included Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and text words. Extensive additional searches were conducted in specialist academic journals and websites. Two reviewers checked study eligibility. One independently extracted data and assessed quality, checked by a second reviewer, with disagreements resolved through discussion. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme cohort checklist was used to assess risk of bias. Meta-analysis was conducted where more than four studies reported the same outcomes, with Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, using adjusted ORs (AORs) and random-effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 test. Results Identified were 23 103 citations, 692 full texts screened and 16 studies included (in 18 papers). One reported mortality (from Denmark), none incidence and 15 prevalence (14 USA, 1 Australia). Same-sex cohabiting women had higher mortality rates compared with opposite-sex cohabiting women in CVD (HR=1.37 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.54)) and respiratory disease (HR=2.10 (95% CI 1.74 to 2.53)). AOR meta-analyses of seven studies showed higher asthma rates in lesbians (OR=1.44 (95% CI 1.27 to 1.64), I2=0%) and bisexual women (OR=1.64 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.89), I2=0%) but no differences for CVD (5 studies), hypertension (5 studies) or diabetes mellitus (7 studies). Conclusions These new health estimates require further confirmatory epidemiological studies, and investigation into potential environmental, hormonal, physiological, psychological or genetic causes. This would be supported by routine collection of sexual identity measures in population-level epidemiological surveys.

Views of commissioners, managers and healthcare professionals on the NHS Health Check programme: a systematic review

Objective To 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. Design A systematic review of surveys and interview studies with a descriptive analysis of quantitative data and thematic synthesis of qualitative data. Data sources An 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 criteria Primary research reporting views of commissioners, managers or healthcare professionals on the NHS Health Check programme and its implementation in practice. Results Of 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. Conclusions The 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.

Reasons why people do not attend NHS Health Checks: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis

Background The NHS Health Check programme is a prevention initiative offering cardiovascular risk assessment and management advice to adults aged 40–74 years across England. Its effectiveness depends on uptake. When it was introduced in 2009, it was anticipated that all those eligible would be invited over a 5-year cycle and 75% of those invited would attend. So far in the current cycle from 2013 to 2018, 33.8% of those eligible have attended, which is equal to 48.5% of those invited to attend. Understanding the reasons why some people do not attend is important to maximise the impact of the programmes. Aim To review why people do not attend NHS Health Checks. Design and setting A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. Method An electronic literature search was carried out of MEDLINE, Embase, Health Management Information Consortium, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, PsycINFO, Web of Science, OpenGrey, the Cochrane Library, NHS Evidence, Google Scholar, Google, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the ISRCTN registry from 1 January 1996 to 9 November 2016, and the reference lists of all included papers were also screened manually. Inclusion criteria were primary research studies that reported the views of people who were eligible for but had not attended an NHS Health Check. Results Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Reasons for not attending included lack of awareness or knowledge, misunderstanding the purpose of the NHS Health Check, aversion to preventive medicine, time constraints, difficulties with access to general practices, and doubts regarding pharmacies as appropriate settings. Conclusion The findings particularly highlight the need for improved communication and publicity around the purpose of the NHS Health Check programme and the personal health benefits of risk factor detection.

A programme theory for liaison mental health services in England

BackgroundMechanisms by which liaison mental health services (LMHS) may bring about improved patient and organisational outcomes are poorly understood. A small number of logic models have been developed, but they fail to capture the complexity of clinical practice.MethodWe synthesised data from a variety of sources including a large national survey, 73 in-depth interviews with acute and liaison staff working in hospitals with different types of liaison mental health services, and relevant local, national and international literature. We generated logic models for two common performance indicators used to assess organisational outcomes for LMHS: response times in the emergency department and hospital length of stay for people with mental health problems.ResultsWe identified 8 areas of complexity that influence performance, and 6 trade-offs which drove the models in different directions depending upon the balance of the trade-off. The logic models we developed could only be captured by consideration of more than one pass through the system, the complexity in which they operated, and the trade-offs that occurred.ConclusionsOur findings are important for commissioners of liaison services. Reliance on simple target setting may result in services that are unbalanced and not patient-centred. Targets need to be reviewed on a regular basis, together with other data that reflect the wider impact of the service, and any external changes in the system that affect the performance of LMHS, which are beyond their control.