Method of invitation and geographical proximity as predictors of NHS Health Check uptake

29Citations
Citations of this article
72Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background Uptake of NHS Health Checks remains below the national target. Better understanding of predictors of uptake can inform targeting and delivery. We explored invitation method and geographical proximity as predictors of uptake in deprived urban communities. Methods This observational cohort study used data from all 4855 individuals invited for an NHS Health Check (September 2010-February 2014) at five general practices in Stoke-on-Trent, UK. Attendance/non-attendance was the binary outcome variable. Predictor variables included the method of invitation, general practice, demographics, deprivation and distance to Health Check location. Results Mean attendance (61.6%) was above the city and national average, but varied by practice (47.5-83.3%; P < 0.001). Telephone/verbal invitations were associated with higher uptake than postal invitations (OR = 2.87, 95% CI = 2.26-3.64), yet significant practice-level variation remained. Distance to Health Check was not associated with attendance. Increasing age (OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 1.03-1.04), female gender (OR = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.30-1.68) and living in the least deprived areas (OR = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.23-2.05) were all independent positive predictors of attendance. Conclusions Using verbal or telephone invitations should be considered to improve Health Check uptake. Other differences in recruitment and delivery that might explain remaining practice-level variation in uptake warrant further exploration. Geographical proximity may not be an important predictor of uptake in urban populations.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Gidlow, C., Ellis, N., Randall, J., Cowap, L., Smith, G., Iqbal, Z., & Kumar, J. (2015). Method of invitation and geographical proximity as predictors of NHS Health Check uptake. Journal of Public Health (United Kingdom), 37(2), 195–201. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdu092

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free