Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32461878›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports2020

Mapping non-response in a prevention program for cardiometabolic diseases in primary care: How to improve participation?

Ilse F Badenbroek, Marcus M J Nielen, Monika Hollander, Daphne M Stol, Astrid E Drijkoningen, Roderik A Kraaijenhagen, Niek J de Wit, François G Schellevis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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.

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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors.

Ilse F BadenbroekJulius Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85060, 3508 AB Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marcus M J NielenNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), The Netherlands.
Monika HollanderJulius Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85060, 3508 AB Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Daphne M StolJulius Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85060, 3508 AB Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Astrid E DrijkoningenNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), The Netherlands.
Roderik A KraaijenhagenNDDO Institute for Prevention and Early Diagnostics (NIPED), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Niek J de WitJulius Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85060, 3508 AB Utrecht, The Netherlands.
François G SchellevisNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Non-response in prevention programs for cardiometabolic diseases (CMD) in primary care is often overlooked. The aim for this study was to define factors that influence the primary response to a selective CMD prevention program and to determine response-enhancing strategies that influence the willingness to participate. We conducted a non-response analysis within a randomized controlled trial evaluating a selective CMD prevention program, the study was conducted from 2013 to 2018 in Netherlands. A random sample of 5616 patients from 15 general practices were invited to complete a risk score (RS) as initial step of the program. Non-responders received an additional questionnaire. The response on the risk score was 51% (n = 2872). From the 3558 non-response questionnaires sent, 786 (22%) were returned. In a multivariable multilevel regression analysis smoking was independently associated with non-response. Of all reported reasons for non-response 'forgot/no time' accounted for 45%. In total, 73% of the non-responders indicated to reconsider participation when approached differently. A personal approach by the patients' own GP, using advertisements and informative campaigns are potentially the best methods to enhance the response. Although a relatively high proportion did not respond to the invitation for the risk score, the majority of them indicated to be willing to participate if a different invitation strategy would be used. With more time and energy, response rates for CMD prevention programs could possibly increase substantially. A next logical step in this process is to test potential response enhancing strategies in research setting.

Indexed as

BMI, Body mass indexCardiovascular DiseasesCMD, Cardiometabolic diseasesCVD, Cardiovascular diseaseHealth Risk BehaviorsPrimary PreventionRefusal to ParticipateRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsRS, risk score

Identifiers

PMID32461878
PMCPMC7240717

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.