Elsevier

Public Health

Volume 131, February 2016, Pages 92-98
Public Health

Original Research
Assessing potential local routine monitoring indicators of reach for the NHS health checks programme

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2015.10.019Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The success of prevention programmes depends to some degree on the extent to which the target population is reached.

  • GP practice registers for diabetes or hypertension are unaffected by health checks, so are unsuitable for monitoring reach.

  • Numbers of health checks consistently explain most of the variance in numbers of individuals at high cardiovascular risk.

  • For every ten health checks, two cases at high cardiovascular risk and a further one with hypertension can be identified.

  • The number of new cases of hypertension practices identify is the most promising measure of local programme reach.

Abstract

Objectives

Success in reaching target populations is an important factor in determining the impact of public health programmes. The NHS Health Check (NHSHC) Programme is directed towards reducing excess cardiovascular mortality in England. As the programme is locally commissioned, local monitoring of programme reach is essential. This study aimed to assess indicators of programme reach available to local service commissioners.

Study design

Ecological.

Methods

The programme reach of NHSHC was assessed in three health districts in the North East of England. Local data returned from GP practices to commissioners on their NHSHC activities was collated for the period October 2010 to March 2013 together with related national published data. Three candidate indicators were chosen and the association between each of these and NHSHCs at GP practice level was examined by univariate logistic regression.

Results

Data were available from 101 GP practices, together undertaking almost 20,000 health checks a year.

Number of NHSHCs by practices explained most (77–92%) of the variance the numbers identified at high risk of cardiovascular disease (two for every ten NHSHCs). NHSHCs were not associated with growth in GP practice disease registers for either diabetes or hypertension.

NHSCHs predicted practices identification of new cases of hypertension (with one case identified for every ten checks), albeit the proportion of variation explained was much more variable (2–60%) less consistent effect.

Conclusions

Data routinely available to NHSHC commissioners can support monitoring programme reach, with numbers of new cases of hypertension being the most promising indicator of reach.

Introduction

The number of companies offering health checks suggests that such checks are sufficiently popular to sustain a market for private provision. The commitment to give ‘everyone in England … the right preventive health check-up’1 appears at least in part a response to this assumed popularity. Official estimates of the potential impact2 of an NHS Health Checks (NHSHC) programme and the explicit intention to tackle cardiovascular mortality3 appear to justify substantial investment. But, to date general health checks have not demonstrated important health benefits in clinical trials.4 Alternative approaches to targeting health checks5,6 and better application of our understanding of behaviour change7,8 should both improve the chances of bigger impact. Trials of the NHSHC model are underway to establish efficacy of the prevailing approaches in England.9,10, 11 Trial based evidence is of course fundamental to determining the efficacy of any public health programme, which is in turn a key determinant of population impact.12

Efficacy is not the only aspect of programme design that can influence programme impact. Other features include: the size and characteristics of the target population and extent to which it is reached (denoted in the RE-AIM Framework as Reach), the adoption of the intervention among provider organisations, and the fidelity of implementation.12 Formal research studies already give insight into the potential reach of NHS Health Checks programme.13, 14 But as this nationally determined programme is locally commissioned, there will be inevitable variation in local delivery.15,16 This means that research findings must be complemented by local monitoring, which will have to compete with local service delivery resources for time, attention and funds. So, finding ways of exploiting existing data sources becomes crucial to the success of the NHSHC programme.

Programme reach of the NHSHC Programme is already monitored, in that numbers of Health Checks are collected and reported across England.17 But potential impact also depends on the characteristics of participants, particularly as those with the greatest risk profile are typically reluctant to participate in prevention programmes.18 This Prevention Paradox appears to hold true for general health checks, which are less appealing to men, those on low incomes, or with low socio-economic status, the unemployed and the less well educated19 and may limit potential impact.20 Despite this, some experiences of NHS programme suggests that these tendencies could be overcome.21, 22

Despite relatively recent publication of national standards for the NHSHC programme23 much of the service specification, operating procedures and contractual requirements are locally determined. So there will be variability in both the service model, and in the information about participants between local programmes. Even where common information is collected (perhaps about risk management planning), differences in data definition and quality assurance systems will make comparisons between programmes problematic using these data sets.

Some relevant standardised contextual information is however routinely available. The size of disease registers linked to cardiovascular disease is reported for GP practices covering the population of England.24 These registers include conditions whose relatively silent presentations (hypertension, diabetes and chronic renal failure) mean they are of particular significance when assessing the impact of health checks for asymptomatic individuals. If those at highest risk are indeed participating in the programme, then the size of these registered populations should initially grow, and the effect of improved disease management should have a predictable impact on premature mortality.

So there are several indicators that could be used to monitor reach of NHSHC locally. The purpose of this study is to evaluate each of these against explicit criteria for their suitability as indicators for local service monitoring.

Section snippets

Populations and programmes

This study included the GP practice populations of Gateshead (35 GP practices), South Tyneside (29 practices) and Sunderland (54 practices); together covering 650,000 people in the North East of England. These programmes were established and funded together by the NHS based public health teams in 2009. They had common support arrangements, operating procedures and administrative procedures. These arrangements diverged with the development of new arrangements for both commissioning of NHS GP

Results

Of the 118 GP practices in the three localities studied, complete data were available from 101 (86%) (Table 1), who together undertook 20,405 health checks in the first round of analysis (year to September 30th 2011) and 18,595 health checks in the later, but overlapping, validation period (year to March 30th 2012).

Much of the variance between practices in numbers of IHR (77–92%) was explained by the number of NHSHCs performed (Table 2, Fig. 1a). For every ten NHSHCs undertaken, GP practices

Main finding of this study

Practice diabetes registers grew during 2011/12, but there was no correlation at GP practice level between NHSHCs undertaken and change in either diabetes or hypertension register size. Growth in disease registers is therefore unsuitable for monitoring local programme reach.

An association at practice level was observed between NHSHCs undertaken by practices and both IHR (NHSHCs explaining up to 92% of the variance between practices) and ICHt (NHSHCs explaining up to 60% of the variance). For

Conclusions

Data routinely available to NHSHC commissioners can support programme monitoring. The numbers of new cases of hypertension identified by practices and by local programmes is the most promising indicator of reach.

Acknowledgements

With thanks to Andy Billett for his encouragement through this work, to Bob Gaffney, Kathryn Muckles and Julie Hansen for securing the data, and to Faye Taylor and Jake Abbas for their comments on an early version of this work. Thanks also to anonymous reviewers, whose comments were of great assistance in developing this paper.

Ethical approval

No data identifying individual patients or practitioners was used in the conduct of this study. No ethical approval was requested.

Funding

No specific funding was made available

References (32)

  • M. Artac et al.

    Effectiveness of a national cardiovascular disease risk assessment program (NHS Health Check): results after one year

    Prev Med Balt

    (2013)
  • In full: Brown speech on the NHS

    BBC

    (2008 Jan)
  • Department of Health

    Putting prevention first vascular checks: risk assessment and management – impact assessment

    (2008 Nov)
  • NHS health check implementation review and action plan

    (2013 Jul)
  • L.T. Krogsbøll et al.

    General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease

    (2012)
  • T. Marshall et al.

    Resource implications and health benefits of primary prevention strategies for cardiovascular disease in people aged 30 to 74: mathematical modelling study

    BMJ

    (2002)
  • C.A. Schuetz et al.

    A standardized vascular disease health check in Europe: a cost-effectiveness analysis

    PLoS One

    (2013 Jan)
  • Behaviour change: the principles for effective interventions (PH6)

    (2007)
  • S. Michie et al.

    The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions

    Implement Sci

    (2011 Apr)
  • T. Cochrane et al.

    NHS health checks through general practice: randomised trial of population cardiovascular risk reduction

    BMC Public Health

    (2012)
  • M. Caley et al.

    The impact of NHS Health Checks on the prevalence of disease in general practices: a controlled study

    Br J Gen Pract

    (2014 Aug 1)
  • R.E. Glasgow et al.

    Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework

    Am J Public Health

    (1999 Sep)
  • M. Artac et al.

    Uptake of the NHS Health Check programme in an urban setting

    Fam Pract [Internet]

    (2013 Feb)
  • M. Artac et al.

    Primary care and population factors associated with NHS Health Check coverage: a national cross-sectional study

    J Public Health

    (2013 Jul)
  • J.M. Nicholas et al.

    Variations in the organization and delivery of the “NHS health check” in primary care

    J Public Health

    (2013 Mar)
  • C.E. Graley et al.

    Postcode lotteries in public health -– the NHS health checks programme in North West London

    BMC Public Health

    (2011)
  • Cited by (3)

    • Local authority commissioning of NHS Health Checks: A regression analysis of the first three years

      2018, Health Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      We reviewed the literature to identify factors predicting uptake of health check programmes in high income countries (details of the inclusion and exclusion criteria are available on request from the authors). We identified 31 relevant studies [3,4,12,16,19–45] and grouped factors using Andersen's Behavioral Model of Health Services Use [18]. Predisposing factors included age group, proportion of males, proportion of white ethnicity, and deprivation level (terciles).

    • What happens after an NHS Health Check? A survey and realist review

      2023, Health and Social Care Delivery Research
    View full text