Who uses NHS health checks? Investigating the impact of ethnicity and gender and method of invitation on uptake of NHS health checks

Background NHS Health Checks is a national risk assessment prevention programme for all individuals aged 40-74 that reside in England. Through the systematic assessment of an individual’s ten year disease risk, this programme aims to provide early identification and subsequent management of this risk. However, there is limited evidence on how socio-demographic factors impact on uptake and what influence the invitation method has on uptake to this programme. Methods NHS Health Check data from April 2013 to March 2014 was analysed (N = 50,485) for all 30 GP Practices in Luton, a culturally diverse town in England, UK. Data was collected for age, ethnicity, uptake (attendance and non attendance) and invitation method (letter written, verbal face-to-face, telephone). Actual usage of NHS Health Checks was determined for each ethnic group of the population and compared using Chi-square analysis. Results The overall uptake rate for Luton was 44 %, markedly lower that the set target of 50–75 %. The findings revealed a variation of uptake in relation to age, gender, level of deprivation. Ethnicity and gender variations were also found, with ‘White British’ ‘Black Caribbean’ and ‘Indian’ patients most likely to take up a NHS Health Check. However, patients from ‘Any Other White Background’ and ‘Black African’ were significantly less likely to uptake an NHS Health Check compared to all other ethnic groups. Ethnicity and gender differences were also noted in relation to invitation method. Conclusions The findings revealed that different invitation methods were effective for different ethnic and gender groups. Therefore, it is suggested that established protocols of invitation are specifically designed for maximizing the response rate for each population group. Future research should now focus on uncovering the barriers to uptake in particular culturally diverse population groups to determine how public health teams can better engage with these communities

The health benefits of a targeted cash transfer: The UK Winter Fuel Payment.

Each year, the UK records 25,000 or more excess winter deaths, primarily among the elderly. A key policy response is the "Winter Fuel Payment" (WFP), a labelled but unconditional cash transfer to households with a member above the female state pension age. The WFP has been shown to raise fuel spending among eligible households. We examine the causal effect of the WFP on health outcomes, including self-reports of chest infection, measured hypertension, and biomarkers of infection and inflammation. We find a robust, 6 percentage point reduction in the incidence of high levels of serum fibrinogen. Reductions in other disease markers point to health benefits, but the estimated effects are less robust

Is brief advice in primary care a cost-effective way to promote physical activity?

This article is made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial.Aim: This study models the cost-effectiveness of brief advice (BA) in primary care for physical activity (PA) addressing the limitations in the current limited economic literature through the use of a time-based modelling approach. Methods: A Markov model was used to compare the lifetime costs and outcomes of a cohort of 100 000 people exposed to BA versus usual care. Health outcomes were expressed in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were assessed from a health provider perspective (£2010/11 prices). Data to populate the model were derived from systematic literature reviews and the literature searches of economic evaluations that were conducted for national guidelines. Deterministic and probability sensitivity analyses explored the uncertainty in parameter estimates including short-term mental health gains associated with PA. Results: Compared with usual care, BA is more expensive, incurring additional costs of £806 809 but it is more effective leading to 466 QALYs gained in the total cohort, a QALY gain of 0.0047/person. The incremental cost per QALY of BA is £1730 (including mental health gains) and thus can be considered cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000/QALY. Most changes in assumptions resulted in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) falling at or below £12 000/QALY gained. However, when short-term mental health gains were excluded the ICER was £27 000/QALY gained. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that, at a threshold of £20 000/QALY, there was a 99.9% chance that BA would be cost-effective. Conclusions: BA is a cost-effective way to improve PA among adults, provided short-term mental health gains are considered. Further research is required to provide more accurate evidence on factors contributing to the cost-effectiveness of BA.NICE Centre for Public Health Excellenc

ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation - the RAPPORT study

Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a prerequisite for many funding bodies and NHS research ethics approval. PPI in research is defined as research carried out with or by the public rather than to, about or for them. While the benefits of PPI have been widely discussed, there is a lack of evidence on the impact and outcomes of PPI in research. Objectives To determine the types of PPI in funded research, describe key processes, analyse the contextual and temporal dynamics of PPI and explore the experience of PPI in research for all those involved. Mechanisms contributing to the routine incorporation of PPI in the research process were assessed, the impact of PPI on research processes and outcomes evaluated, and barriers and enablers to effective PPI identified. Design A three-staged realist evaluation drawing on Normalisation Process Theory to understand how far PPI was embedded within health-care research in six areas: diabetes mellitus, arthritis, cystic fibrosis, dementia, public health and learning disabilities. The first two stages comprised a scoping exercise and online survey to chief investigators to assess current PPI activity. The third stage consisted of case studies tracked over 18 months through interviews and document analysis. The research was conducted in four regions of England. Participants Non-commercial studies currently running or completed within the previous 2 years eligible for adoption on the UK Clinical Research Network portfolio. A total of 129 case study participants included researchers and PPI representatives from 22 research studies, and representatives from funding bodies and PPI networks

An observational study to assess if automated diabetic retinopathy image assessment software can replace one or more steps of manual imaging grading and to determine their cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy screening in England involves labour-intensive manual grading of retinal images. Automated retinal image analysis systems (ARIASs) may offer an alternative to manual grading. OBJECTIVES: To determine the screening performance and cost-effectiveness of ARIASs to replace level 1 human graders or pre-screen with ARIASs in the NHS diabetic eye screening programme (DESP). To examine technical issues associated with implementation. DESIGN: Observational retrospective measurement comparison study with a real-time evaluation of technical issues and a decision-analytic model to evaluate cost-effectiveness. SETTING: A NHS DESP. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive diabetic patients who attended a routine annual NHS DESP visit. INTERVENTIONS: Retinal images were manually graded and processed by three ARIASs: iGradingM (version 1.1; originally Medalytix Group Ltd, Manchester, UK, but purchased by Digital Healthcare, Cambridge, UK, at the initiation of the study, purchased in turn by EMIS Health, Leeds, UK, after conclusion of the study), Retmarker (version 0.8.2, Retmarker Ltd, Coimbra, Portugal) and EyeArt (Eyenuk Inc., Woodland Hills, CA, USA). The final manual grade was used as the reference standard. Arbitration on a subset of discrepancies between manual grading and the use of an ARIAS by a reading centre masked to all grading was used to create a reference standard manual grade modified by arbitration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Screening performance (sensitivity, specificity, false-positive rate and likelihood ratios) and diagnostic accuracy [95% confidence intervals (CIs)] of ARIASs. A secondary analysis explored the influence of camera type and patients' ethnicity, age and sex on screening performance. Economic analysis estimated the cost per appropriate screening outcome identified. RESULTS: A total of 20,258 patients with 102,856 images were entered into the study. The sensitivity point estimates of the ARIASs were as follows: EyeArt 94.7% (95% CI 94.2% to 95.2%) for any retinopathy, 93.8% (95% CI 92.9% to 94.6%) for referable retinopathy and 99.6% (95% CI 97.0% to 99.9%) for proliferative retinopathy; and Retmarker 73.0% (95% CI 72.0% to 74.0%) for any retinopathy, 85.0% (95% CI 83.6% to 86.2%) for referable retinopathy and 97.9% (95% CI 94.9 to 99.1%) for proliferative retinopathy. iGradingM classified all images as either 'disease' or 'ungradable', limiting further iGradingM analysis. The sensitivity and false-positive rates for EyeArt were not affected by ethnicity, sex or camera type but sensitivity declined marginally with increasing patient age. The screening performance of Retmarker appeared to vary with patient's age, ethnicity and camera type. Both EyeArt and Retmarker were cost saving relative to manual grading either as a replacement for level 1 human grading or used prior to level 1 human grading, although the latter was less cost-effective. A threshold analysis testing the highest ARIAS cost per patient before which ARIASs became more expensive per appropriate outcome than human grading, when used to replace level 1 grader, was Retmarker £3.82 and EyeArt £2.71 per patient. LIMITATIONS: The non-randomised study design limited the health economic analysis but the same retinal images were processed by all ARIASs in this measurement comparison study. CONCLUSIONS: Retmarker and EyeArt achieved acceptable sensitivity for referable retinopathy and false-positive rates (compared with human graders as reference standard) and appear to be cost-effective alternatives to a purely manual grading approach. Future work is required to develop technical specifications to optimise deployment and address potential governance issues. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme, a Fight for Sight Grant (Hirsch grant award) and the Department of Health's NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology at Moorfields Eye Hospital and the University College London Institute of Ophthalmology

Independent advocacy for children and young people: developing an outcomes framework

Advocacy services for vulnerable children and young people began to be provided in the 1980s (Willow, 2013) and have grown as legislation and guidance expanded the range and remit of services (Wood and Selwyn, 2013). Research has followed the development of policy and services, but until recently has not examined the impact and outcomes of advocacy in any depth. In this article we draw on findings from a study of the outcomes and impact of independent advocacy for children and young people to explore how the value of advocacy is understood by them and by advocates, social workers and other professionals, and to consider what differences advocacy can make to the lives of children and young people (Thomas et al., 2016). Our findings indicate that the outcomes of advocacy in children and young people’s lives can be significant and wide-ranging, including both direct effects on the child or young person and wider impact on services. This complex picture has implications for how best to capture and report the outcomes of advocacy, which we explore in the latter part of the article with the aid of a proposed new conceptual framework