Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29916723›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of preventive cardiology2018

Barriers and facilitators to participation in a health check for cardiometabolic diseases in primary care: A systematic review.

Anne-Karien M de Waard, Per E Wändell, Martin J Holzmann, Joke C Korevaar, Monika Hollander, Carl Gornitzki, Niek J de Wit, François G Schellevis, Christos Lionis, Jens Søndergaard and 3 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of preventive cardiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Anne-Karien M de Waard1 Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center, the Netherlands.
Per E Wändell2 Department of Neurobiology, Care Science and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden.
Martin J Holzmann3 Functional Area of Emergency Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden.
Joke C Korevaar5 NIVEL (Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research), the Netherlands.
Monika Hollander1 Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center, the Netherlands.
Carl Gornitzki6 University Library, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden.
Niek J de Wit1 Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center, the Netherlands.
François G Schellevis5 NIVEL (Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research), the Netherlands.
Christos Lionis8 Clinic of Social and Family Medicine, University of Crete, Greece.
Jens Søndergaard9 Research Unit for General Practice, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark.
Bohumil Seifert10 Department of General Practice, Charles University, Czech Republic.
Axel C Carlsson2 Department of Neurobiology, Care Science and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden.
SPIMEU Research Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Health checks for cardiometabolic diseases could play a role in the identification of persons at high risk for disease. To improve the uptake of these health checks in primary care, we need to know what barriers and facilitators determine participation. Methods We used an iterative search strategy consisting of three steps: (a) identification of key-articles; (b) systematic literature search in PubMed, Medline and Embase based on keywords; (c) screening of titles and abstracts and subsequently full-text screening. We summarised the results into four categories: characteristics, attitudes, practical reasons and healthcare provider-related factors. Results Thirty-nine studies were included. Attitudes such as wanting to know of cardiometabolic disease risk, feeling responsible for, and concerns about one's own health were facilitators for participation. Younger age, smoking, low education and attitudes such as not wanting to be, or being, worried about the outcome, low perceived severity or susceptibility, and negative attitude towards health checks or prevention in general were barriers. Furthermore, practical issues such as information and the ease of access to appointments could influence participation. Conclusion Barriers and facilitators to participation in health checks for cardiometabolic diseases were heterogeneous. Hence, it is not possible to develop a 'one size fits all' approach to maximise the uptake. For optimal implementation we suggest a multifactorial approach adapted to the national context with special attention to people who might be more difficult to reach. Increasing the uptake of health checks could contribute to identifying the people at risk to be able to start preventive interventions.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCardiovascular DiseasesGlobal HealthHumansMass ScreeningMorbidityPreventive Health ServicesPrimary Health Careattendancecardiometabolic diseasecardiovascular diseasediabetesgeneral practitionerHealth checkparticipationpreventionprimary care

Identifiers

PMID29916723
PMCPMC6097107

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.