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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Health policy (Amsterdam) 2018-09, Vol.122 (9), p.1035-1042
Hauptverfasser: Mason, Anne, Liu, Dan, Marks, Linda, Davis, Howard, Hunter, David, Jehu, Llinos Mary, Visram, Shelina, Smithson, Joanne
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; numerical data ; Preventative care ; Preventive Health Services - economics ; Preventive Health Services - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Preventive medicine ; Primary care ; Primary Health Care - economics ; Primary Health Care - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Primary prevention ; Primary Prevention - economics ; Primary Prevention - statistics &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Preventative care</subject><subject>Preventive Health Services - economics</subject><subject>Preventive Health Services - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Preventive medicine</subject><subject>Primary care</subject><subject>Primary Health Care - economics</subject><subject>Primary Health Care - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Primary prevention</subject><subject>Primary Prevention - economics</subject><subject>Primary Prevention - statistics &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Preventative care</topic><topic>Preventive Health Services - economics</topic><topic>Preventive Health Services - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Preventive medicine</topic><topic>Primary care</topic><topic>Primary Health Care - economics</topic><topic>Primary Health Care - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Primary prevention</topic><topic>Primary Prevention - economics</topic><topic>Primary Prevention - statistics &amp; 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 &amp; 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