Local authority commissioning of NHS Health Checks: A regression analysis of the first three years
•The English NHS health check programme aims to prevent morbidity and mortality.•In 2013, local authorities became responsible for health checks.•Higher expenditure is linked to higher invitation and coverage rates.•The amount spent does not influence uptake rates.•Opportunistic approaches may help...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Health policy (Amsterdam) 2018-09, Vol.122 (9), p.1035-1042 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1042 |
---|---|
container_issue | 9 |
container_start_page | 1035 |
container_title | Health policy (Amsterdam) |
container_volume | 122 |
creator | Mason, Anne Liu, Dan Marks, Linda Davis, Howard Hunter, David Jehu, Llinos Mary Visram, Shelina Smithson, Joanne |
description | •The English NHS health check programme aims to prevent morbidity and mortality.•In 2013, local authorities became responsible for health checks.•Higher expenditure is linked to higher invitation and coverage rates.•The amount spent does not influence uptake rates.•Opportunistic approaches may help improve uptake.
In April 2013, the public health function was transferred from the NHS to local government, making local authorities (LAs) responsible for commissioning the NHS Health Check programme. The programme aims to reduce preventable mortality and morbidity in people aged 40–74.
The national five-year ambition is to invite all eligible individuals and to achieve an uptake of 75%. This study evaluates the effects of LA expenditure on the programme’s invitation rates (the proportion of the eligible population invited to a health check), coverage rates (the proportion of the eligible population who received a health check) and uptake rates (attendance by those who received a formal invitation letter) in the first three years of the reforms. We ran negative binomial panel models and controlled for a range of confounders.
Over 2013/14–2015/16, the invitation rate, coverage rate and uptake rate averaged 57% 28% and 49% respectively. Higher per capita spend on the programme was associated with increases in both the invitation rate and coverage rate, but had no effect on the uptake rate. When we controlled for the LA invitation rate, the association between spend and coverage rate was smaller but remained statistically significant. This suggests that alternatives to formal invitation, such as opportunistic approaches in work places or sports centres, may be effective in influencing attendance. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.07.010 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2079955093</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0168851018302665</els_id><sourcerecordid>2120181889</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-a81910340d8d68eb1716397cbfd02728968929cb2fea1a678ff27c4a6b88c6ec3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkUtv2zAQhImiReOm_QsJgV56kbrUg4_cDCOtCxjtocmZoKhVREcWHVIK4H9fOk5yyKWn3cM3s9gZQi4Z5AwY_77NezTD1O_9kBfAZA4iBwbvyIJJUWQc6uo9WSRSZrJmcEY-xbgFAFGW_CM5KwHqWiq1IM3GWzNQM0-9D246UOt3Oxej86Mb76jv6O_1X7p-OkZXPdr7eEWXNOBdwCeKmtEMh-jikZ16pJ0LcUpbQKQHNCF-Jh86M0T88jzPye2P65vVOtv8-flrtdxktqrklBnJFIOygla2XGLDBOOlErbpWihEIRWXqlC2KTo0zHAhu64QtjK8kdJytOU5-Xby3Qf_MGOcdHrE4jCYEf0cdQFCqboGVSb06xt06-eQHkkUO-bJpFSJEifKBh9jwE7vg9uZcNAM9LEGvdWvNeijTIPQqYakvHj2n5sdtq-6l9wTsDwBmAJ5dBh0tA5Hi60LaCfdevffI_8Axuuc1w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2120181889</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Local authority commissioning of NHS Health Checks: A regression analysis of the first three years</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Mason, Anne ; Liu, Dan ; Marks, Linda ; Davis, Howard ; Hunter, David ; Jehu, Llinos Mary ; Visram, Shelina ; Smithson, Joanne</creator><creatorcontrib>Mason, Anne ; Liu, Dan ; Marks, Linda ; Davis, Howard ; Hunter, David ; Jehu, Llinos Mary ; Visram, Shelina ; Smithson, Joanne</creatorcontrib><description>•The English NHS health check programme aims to prevent morbidity and mortality.•In 2013, local authorities became responsible for health checks.•Higher expenditure is linked to higher invitation and coverage rates.•The amount spent does not influence uptake rates.•Opportunistic approaches may help improve uptake.
In April 2013, the public health function was transferred from the NHS to local government, making local authorities (LAs) responsible for commissioning the NHS Health Check programme. The programme aims to reduce preventable mortality and morbidity in people aged 40–74.
The national five-year ambition is to invite all eligible individuals and to achieve an uptake of 75%. This study evaluates the effects of LA expenditure on the programme’s invitation rates (the proportion of the eligible population invited to a health check), coverage rates (the proportion of the eligible population who received a health check) and uptake rates (attendance by those who received a formal invitation letter) in the first three years of the reforms. We ran negative binomial panel models and controlled for a range of confounders.
Over 2013/14–2015/16, the invitation rate, coverage rate and uptake rate averaged 57% 28% and 49% respectively. Higher per capita spend on the programme was associated with increases in both the invitation rate and coverage rate, but had no effect on the uptake rate. When we controlled for the LA invitation rate, the association between spend and coverage rate was smaller but remained statistically significant. This suggests that alternatives to formal invitation, such as opportunistic approaches in work places or sports centres, may be effective in influencing attendance.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0168-8510</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-6054</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.07.010</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30055899</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ireland: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Ambition ; Attendance ; Cardiovascular disease ; Cardiovascular diseases ; Cardiovascular Diseases - prevention & control ; Commissioning ; England ; Female ; Health checks ; Health services ; Humans ; Local authorities ; Local government ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Morbidity ; Mortality ; NHS Health Check ; Patient Acceptance of Health Care - statistics & numerical data ; Preventative care ; Preventive Health Services - economics ; Preventive Health Services - statistics & numerical data ; Preventive medicine ; Primary care ; Primary Health Care - economics ; Primary Health Care - statistics & numerical data ; Primary prevention ; Primary Prevention - economics ; Primary Prevention - statistics & numerical data ; Public health ; Reforms ; Regression analysis ; Sports ; State Medicine ; Uptake ; Workplaces</subject><ispartof>Health policy (Amsterdam), 2018-09, Vol.122 (9), p.1035-1042</ispartof><rights>2018 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Sep 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-a81910340d8d68eb1716397cbfd02728968929cb2fea1a678ff27c4a6b88c6ec3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-a81910340d8d68eb1716397cbfd02728968929cb2fea1a678ff27c4a6b88c6ec3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9847-6207 ; 0000-0002-5823-3064 ; 0000-0001-9576-2689 ; 0000-0003-1954-8802 ; 0000-0002-1891-9352</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.07.010$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3549,27865,27923,27924,30998,45994</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30055899$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mason, Anne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Dan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marks, Linda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, Howard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hunter, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jehu, Llinos Mary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Visram, Shelina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smithson, Joanne</creatorcontrib><title>Local authority commissioning of NHS Health Checks: A regression analysis of the first three years</title><title>Health policy (Amsterdam)</title><addtitle>Health Policy</addtitle><description>•The English NHS health check programme aims to prevent morbidity and mortality.•In 2013, local authorities became responsible for health checks.•Higher expenditure is linked to higher invitation and coverage rates.•The amount spent does not influence uptake rates.•Opportunistic approaches may help improve uptake.
In April 2013, the public health function was transferred from the NHS to local government, making local authorities (LAs) responsible for commissioning the NHS Health Check programme. The programme aims to reduce preventable mortality and morbidity in people aged 40–74.
The national five-year ambition is to invite all eligible individuals and to achieve an uptake of 75%. This study evaluates the effects of LA expenditure on the programme’s invitation rates (the proportion of the eligible population invited to a health check), coverage rates (the proportion of the eligible population who received a health check) and uptake rates (attendance by those who received a formal invitation letter) in the first three years of the reforms. We ran negative binomial panel models and controlled for a range of confounders.
Over 2013/14–2015/16, the invitation rate, coverage rate and uptake rate averaged 57% 28% and 49% respectively. Higher per capita spend on the programme was associated with increases in both the invitation rate and coverage rate, but had no effect on the uptake rate. When we controlled for the LA invitation rate, the association between spend and coverage rate was smaller but remained statistically significant. This suggests that alternatives to formal invitation, such as opportunistic approaches in work places or sports centres, may be effective in influencing attendance.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Ambition</subject><subject>Attendance</subject><subject>Cardiovascular disease</subject><subject>Cardiovascular diseases</subject><subject>Cardiovascular Diseases - prevention & control</subject><subject>Commissioning</subject><subject>England</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health checks</subject><subject>Health services</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Local authorities</subject><subject>Local government</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Morbidity</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>NHS Health Check</subject><subject>Patient Acceptance of Health Care - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Preventative care</subject><subject>Preventive Health Services - economics</subject><subject>Preventive Health Services - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Preventive medicine</subject><subject>Primary care</subject><subject>Primary Health Care - economics</subject><subject>Primary Health Care - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Primary prevention</subject><subject>Primary Prevention - economics</subject><subject>Primary Prevention - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Reforms</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Sports</subject><subject>State Medicine</subject><subject>Uptake</subject><subject>Workplaces</subject><issn>0168-8510</issn><issn>1872-6054</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkUtv2zAQhImiReOm_QsJgV56kbrUg4_cDCOtCxjtocmZoKhVREcWHVIK4H9fOk5yyKWn3cM3s9gZQi4Z5AwY_77NezTD1O_9kBfAZA4iBwbvyIJJUWQc6uo9WSRSZrJmcEY-xbgFAFGW_CM5KwHqWiq1IM3GWzNQM0-9D246UOt3Oxej86Mb76jv6O_1X7p-OkZXPdr7eEWXNOBdwCeKmtEMh-jikZ16pJ0LcUpbQKQHNCF-Jh86M0T88jzPye2P65vVOtv8-flrtdxktqrklBnJFIOygla2XGLDBOOlErbpWihEIRWXqlC2KTo0zHAhu64QtjK8kdJytOU5-Xby3Qf_MGOcdHrE4jCYEf0cdQFCqboGVSb06xt06-eQHkkUO-bJpFSJEifKBh9jwE7vg9uZcNAM9LEGvdWvNeijTIPQqYakvHj2n5sdtq-6l9wTsDwBmAJ5dBh0tA5Hi60LaCfdevffI_8Axuuc1w</recordid><startdate>201809</startdate><enddate>201809</enddate><creator>Mason, Anne</creator><creator>Liu, Dan</creator><creator>Marks, Linda</creator><creator>Davis, Howard</creator><creator>Hunter, David</creator><creator>Jehu, Llinos Mary</creator><creator>Visram, Shelina</creator><creator>Smithson, Joanne</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier Science Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9847-6207</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5823-3064</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9576-2689</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1954-8802</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1891-9352</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201809</creationdate><title>Local authority commissioning of NHS Health Checks: A regression analysis of the first three years</title><author>Mason, Anne ; Liu, Dan ; Marks, Linda ; Davis, Howard ; Hunter, David ; Jehu, Llinos Mary ; Visram, Shelina ; Smithson, Joanne</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-a81910340d8d68eb1716397cbfd02728968929cb2fea1a678ff27c4a6b88c6ec3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Ambition</topic><topic>Attendance</topic><topic>Cardiovascular disease</topic><topic>Cardiovascular diseases</topic><topic>Cardiovascular Diseases - prevention & control</topic><topic>Commissioning</topic><topic>England</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health checks</topic><topic>Health services</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Local authorities</topic><topic>Local government</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Morbidity</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>NHS Health Check</topic><topic>Patient Acceptance of Health Care - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Preventative care</topic><topic>Preventive Health Services - economics</topic><topic>Preventive Health Services - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Preventive medicine</topic><topic>Primary care</topic><topic>Primary Health Care - economics</topic><topic>Primary Health Care - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Primary prevention</topic><topic>Primary Prevention - economics</topic><topic>Primary Prevention - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Reforms</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Sports</topic><topic>State Medicine</topic><topic>Uptake</topic><topic>Workplaces</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mason, Anne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Dan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marks, Linda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, Howard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hunter, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jehu, Llinos Mary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Visram, Shelina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smithson, Joanne</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Health policy (Amsterdam)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mason, Anne</au><au>Liu, Dan</au><au>Marks, Linda</au><au>Davis, Howard</au><au>Hunter, David</au><au>Jehu, Llinos Mary</au><au>Visram, Shelina</au><au>Smithson, Joanne</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Local authority commissioning of NHS Health Checks: A regression analysis of the first three years</atitle><jtitle>Health policy (Amsterdam)</jtitle><addtitle>Health Policy</addtitle><date>2018-09</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>122</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1035</spage><epage>1042</epage><pages>1035-1042</pages><issn>0168-8510</issn><eissn>1872-6054</eissn><abstract>•The English NHS health check programme aims to prevent morbidity and mortality.•In 2013, local authorities became responsible for health checks.•Higher expenditure is linked to higher invitation and coverage rates.•The amount spent does not influence uptake rates.•Opportunistic approaches may help improve uptake.
In April 2013, the public health function was transferred from the NHS to local government, making local authorities (LAs) responsible for commissioning the NHS Health Check programme. The programme aims to reduce preventable mortality and morbidity in people aged 40–74.
The national five-year ambition is to invite all eligible individuals and to achieve an uptake of 75%. This study evaluates the effects of LA expenditure on the programme’s invitation rates (the proportion of the eligible population invited to a health check), coverage rates (the proportion of the eligible population who received a health check) and uptake rates (attendance by those who received a formal invitation letter) in the first three years of the reforms. We ran negative binomial panel models and controlled for a range of confounders.
Over 2013/14–2015/16, the invitation rate, coverage rate and uptake rate averaged 57% 28% and 49% respectively. Higher per capita spend on the programme was associated with increases in both the invitation rate and coverage rate, but had no effect on the uptake rate. When we controlled for the LA invitation rate, the association between spend and coverage rate was smaller but remained statistically significant. This suggests that alternatives to formal invitation, such as opportunistic approaches in work places or sports centres, may be effective in influencing attendance.</abstract><cop>Ireland</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>30055899</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.07.010</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9847-6207</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5823-3064</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9576-2689</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1954-8802</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1891-9352</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0168-8510 |
ispartof | Health policy (Amsterdam), 2018-09, Vol.122 (9), p.1035-1042 |
issn | 0168-8510 1872-6054 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2079955093 |
source | MEDLINE; PAIS Index; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present) |
subjects | Adult Aged Ambition Attendance Cardiovascular disease Cardiovascular diseases Cardiovascular Diseases - prevention & control Commissioning England Female Health checks Health services Humans Local authorities Local government Male Middle Aged Morbidity Mortality NHS Health Check Patient Acceptance of Health Care - statistics & numerical data Preventative care Preventive Health Services - economics Preventive Health Services - statistics & numerical data Preventive medicine Primary care Primary Health Care - economics Primary Health Care - statistics & numerical data Primary prevention Primary Prevention - economics Primary Prevention - statistics & numerical data Public health Reforms Regression analysis Sports State Medicine Uptake Workplaces |
title | Local authority commissioning of NHS Health Checks: A regression analysis of the first three years |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T16%3A32%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Local%20authority%20commissioning%20of%20NHS%20Health%20Checks:%20A%20regression%20analysis%20of%20the%20first%20three%20years&rft.jtitle=Health%20policy%20(Amsterdam)&rft.au=Mason,%20Anne&rft.date=2018-09&rft.volume=122&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1035&rft.epage=1042&rft.pages=1035-1042&rft.issn=0168-8510&rft.eissn=1872-6054&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.07.010&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2120181889%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2120181889&rft_id=info:pmid/30055899&rft_els_id=S0168851018302665&rfr_iscdi=true |