Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31604416›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2019

Why do general practitioners not refer patients to behaviour-change programmes after preventive health checks? A mixed-method study.

Nina Kamstrup-Larsen, Marie Broholm-Jørgensen, Susanne O Dalton, Lars B Larsen, Janus L Thomsen, Janne S Tolstrup

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01979107 (Early Detection of and Intervention Towards Chronic Diseases Among Individuals Without Formal Education), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT01979107 nacompletednot on this map

Early Detection of and Intervention Towards Chronic Diseases Among Individuals Without Formal Education

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Southern DenmarkRan2014 to 2016Enrolled1,104ConditionsSmoking, Health Behavior, Chronic DiseaseArmsProactive action by the general practitioner
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Nina Kamstrup-LarsenNational Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Studiestræde 6, 1455, Copenhagen, Denmark. nkal@niph.dk.ORCID 0000-0002-6123-8309
Marie Broholm-JørgensenNational Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Studiestræde 6, 1455, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Susanne O DaltonSurvivorship Research Unit, the Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lars B LarsenResearch Unit of General Practice in Odense, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Janus L ThomsenResearch Unit for General Practice in Aalborg, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Janne S TolstrupNational Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Studiestræde 6, 1455, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study was embedded in the Check-In randomised controlled trial that investigated the effectiveness of general practice-based preventive health checks on adverse health behaviour and early detection of non-communicable diseases offered to individuals with low socioeconomic positions. Despite successful recruitment of patients, the intervention had no effect. One reason for the lack of effectiveness could be low rates of referral to behaviour-change programmes in the municipality, resulting in a low dose of the intervention delivered. The aim of this study is to examine the referral pattern of the general practitioners and potential barriers to referring eligible patients to these behaviour-change programmes.

methodsA mixed-method design was used, including patients' questionnaires, recording sheet from the health checks and semi-structured qualitative interviews with general practitioners. All data used in the study were collected during the time of the intervention. Logistic regressions were used to estimate odds ratios for being eligible and for receiving referrals. The qualitative empirical material was analysed thematically. Emerging themes were grouped, discussed and the material was re-read. The themes were reviewed alongside the analysis of the quantitative material to refine and discuss the themes.

resultsOf the 364 patients, who attended the health check, 165 (45%) were marked as eligible for a referral to behaviour-change programme by their general practitioner and of these, 90 (55%) received referrals. Daily smoking (OR = 3.22; 95% CI:2.01-5.17), high-risk alcohol consumption (OR = 2.66; 95% CI:1.38-5.12), obesity (OR = 2.89; 95% CI:1.61-5.16) and poor lung function (OR = 2.05; 95% CI:1.14-3.70) were all significantly associated with being eligible, but not with receiving referral. Four themes emerged as the main barriers to referring patients to behaviour-change programmes: 1) general practitioners' responsibility and ownership for their patients, 2) balancing information and accepting a rejection, 3) assessment of the right time for behavioural change and 4) general practitioners' attitudes towards behaviour-change programmes in the municipality.

conclusionWe identified important barriers among the general practitioners which influenced whether the patients received referrals to behaviour-change programmes in the municipality and thereby influenced the dose of intervention delivered in Check-In. The findings suggest that an effort is needed to assist the collaboration between general practices and the municipalities' primary preventive services.

trial registrationClinical Trials NCT01979107 ; October 25, 2013.

Indexed as

General PractitionersPreventive MedicineReferral and ConsultationRisk Reduction BehaviorAdultFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPractice Patterns, Physicians'Socioeconomic FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesBarriersBehavioural supportCross-sectoral collaborationGeneral practiceMixed methodsMunicipal health servicePreventiveReferral

Identifiers

PMID31604416
PMCPMC6788028

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.