Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29860363›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine2018

Enhanced Invitations Using the Question-Behavior Effect and Financial Incentives to Promote Health Check Uptake in Primary Care.

Lisa McDermott, Victoria Cornelius, Alison J Wright, Caroline Burgess, Alice S Forster, Mark Ashworth, Bernadette Khoshaba, Philippa Clery, Frances Fuller, Jane Miller and 4 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Lisa McDermottDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, Addison House, Guy's Campus, London, UK.
Victoria CorneliusDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, Addison House, Guy's Campus, London, UK.
Alison J WrightDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, Addison House, Guy's Campus, London, UK.
Caroline BurgessDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, Addison House, Guy's Campus, London, UK.
Alice S ForsterDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, Addison House, Guy's Campus, London, UK.
Mark AshworthDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, Addison House, Guy's Campus, London, UK.
Bernadette KhoshabaDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, Addison House, Guy's Campus, London, UK.
Philippa CleryDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, Addison House, Guy's Campus, London, UK.
Frances FullerPublic Health, Community Services Directorate, Lewisham Borough Council, Laurence House, London, UK.
Jane MillerPublic Health, Community Services Directorate, Lewisham Borough Council, Laurence House, London, UK.
Hiten DodhiaPublic Health Directorate, Lambeth Borough Council, Phoenix House, London, UK.
Caroline RudisillDepartment of Social Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton St, London, UK.
Mark T ConnerSchool of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Martin C GullifordDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, Addison House, Guy's Campus, London, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 17429Cancer Research UK C49896/A17429Department of Health 11/129/61
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Uptake of health checks for cardiovascular risk assessment in primary care in England is lower than anticipated. The question-behavior effect (QBE) may offer a simple, scalable intervention to increase health check uptake. Purpose: The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of enhanced invitation methods employing the QBE, with or without a financial incentive to return the questionnaire, at increasing uptake of health checks. Methods: We conducted a three-arm randomized trial including all patients at 18 general practices in two London boroughs, who were invited for health checks from July 2013 to December 2014. Participants were randomized to three trial arms: (i) Standard health check invitation letter only; (ii) QBE questionnaire followed by standard invitation letter; or (iii) QBE questionnaire with offer of a financial incentive to return the questionnaire, followed by standard invitation letter. In intention to treat analysis, the primary outcome of completion of health check within 6 months of invitation, was evaluated using a p value of .0167 for significance. Results: 12,459 participants were randomized. Health check uptake was evaluated for 12,052 (97%) with outcome data collected. Health check uptake within 6 months of invitation was: standard invitation, 590 / 4,095 (14.41%); QBE questionnaire, 630 / 3,988 (15.80%); QBE questionnaire and financial incentive, 629 / 3,969 (15.85%). Difference following QBE questionnaire, 1.43% (95% confidence interval -0.12 to 2.97%, p = .070); following QBE questionnaire and financial incentive, 1.52% (-0.03 to 3.07%, p = .054). Conclusions: Uptake of health checks following a standard invitation was low and not significantly increased through enhanced invitation methods using the QBE.

Indexed as

MotivationPatient ComplianceAdultAgedCardiovascular DiseasesFemaleHealth PromotionHumansIntentionMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareRisk AssessmentSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID29860363
PMCPMC6361284

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.