Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30791884›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2019

Randomised controlled trial comparing uptake of NHS Health Check in response to standard letters, risk-personalised letters and telephone invitations.

Christopher J Gidlow, Naomi J Ellis, Victoria Riley, Tim Chadborn, Amanda Bunten, Zafar Iqbal, Aliko Ahmed, Alistair Fisher, David Sugden, David Clark-Carter

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Increasing uptake of NHS Health Checks: a randomised controlled trial using GP computer prompts.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021
    Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Involving people with type 2 diabetes in facilitating participation in a cardiovascular screening programme.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Christopher J GidlowCentre for Health and Development (CHAD), Staffordshire University, Brindley Building, Leek Road, Stoke-on-Trent, ST4 2DF, England. c.gidlow@staffs.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4990-4572
Naomi J EllisCentre for Health and Development (CHAD), Staffordshire University, Brindley Building, Leek Road, Stoke-on-Trent, ST4 2DF, England.
Victoria RileyCentre for Health and Development (CHAD), Staffordshire University, Brindley Building, Leek Road, Stoke-on-Trent, ST4 2DF, England.
Tim ChadbornPublic Health England, Skipton House, 80 London Road, London, SE1 6LH, England.
Amanda BuntenPublic Health England, Skipton House, 80 London Road, London, SE1 6LH, England.
Zafar IqbalMidlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, St George's Hospital, Corporation Street, Stafford, ST16 3AG, England.
Aliko AhmedPublic Health England East of England, Victoria House, Capital Park, Fulbourn, Cambridge, CB21 5XA, England.
Alistair FisherStoke-on-Trent City Council, Glebe Street, Stoke-on-Trent, ST4 1HH, England.
David SugdenStaffordshire County Council, 1 Staffordshire Place, Stafford, ST16 2LP, England.
David Clark-CarterCentre for Psychological Research, Staffordshire University, The Science Centre, Leek Road, Stoke-on-Trent, ST4 2DF, England.
University of Staffordshire · GBPublic Health England · GBMidlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust · GBStaffordshire County Council · GBStoke-on-Trent City Council · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNHS Health Check is a primary prevention programme offering cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment to adults in England aged 40-74. Uptake remains a challenge and invitation method is a strong predictor of uptake. There is evidence of low uptake when using invitation letters. Telephone invitations might increase uptake, but are not widely used. We explored the potential to improve uptake through personalising letters to patient's CVD risk, and to compare this with generic letters and telephone invitations.

methodsHEalth Check TRial (HECTR) was a three-arm randomised controlled trial in nine general practices in Staffordshire (UK). Eligible patients were randomised to be invited to a NHS Health Check using one of three methods: standard letter (control); telephone invitation; letter personalised to the patient's CVD risk. The primary outcome was attendance/non-attendance. Data were collected on a range of patient- and practice-level factors (e.g., patient socio-demographics, CVD risk, practice size, Health Checks outside usual working hours). Multi-level logistic regression estimated the marginal effects to explore whether invitation method predicted attendance. Invitation costs were collated from practices to estimate cost benefit.

resultsIn total, 4614 patients were included in analysis (mean age 50.2 ± 8.0 yr.; 52.4% female). Compared with patients invited by standard letter (30.9%), uptake was significantly higher in those invited by telephone (47.6%, P < .001), but not personalised letter (31.3%, p = .812). In multi-level analysis, compared with the standard letter arm, likelihood of attendance was 18 percentage points higher in the telephone arm and 4 percentage points higher in the personalised letter arm. The effect of telephone calls appeared strongest in patients who were younger and had lower CVD risk. We estimated per 1000 patients invited, risk-personalised letters could result in 40 additional attended Health Checks (at no extra cost) and telephone invitations could result in 180 additional Health Checks at an additional cost of £240.

conclusionsTelephone invitations should be advocated to address the substantial deficit between current and required levels of NHS uptake, and could be targeted at younger and lower CVD risk adults. Risk-personalised letters should be explored further in a larger sample of high risk individuals.

trial registrationRegistration number: ISRCTN15840751 date of registration: 24/10/2017.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorPostal ServicePrimary PreventionTelephoneAdultAgedCardiovascular DiseasesCost-Benefit AnalysisEnglandFemaleHealth PromotionHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedRiskHealth checkPolicy implementationPreventionRiskVascular disease

Identifiers

PMID30791884
PMCPMC6385450
OpenAlexW2923571492

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.