↓ Skip to main content

The effectiveness of an enhanced invitation letter on uptake of National Health Service Health Checks in primary care: a pragmatic quasi-randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Family Practice, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
156 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The effectiveness of an enhanced invitation letter on uptake of National Health Service Health Checks in primary care: a pragmatic quasi-randomised controlled trial
Published in
BMC Family Practice, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12875-016-0426-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Sallis, Amanda Bunten, Annabelle Bonus, Andrew James, Tim Chadborn, Daniel Berry

Abstract

The National Health Service Health Check (NHS HC) is a population level public health programme. It is a primary prevention initiative offering cardiovascular risk assessment and management for adults aged 40-74 years (every five years). It was designed to reduce the incidence of major vascular disease events by preventing or delaying the onset of diabetes, heart and kidney disease, stroke and vascular dementia . Effectiveness of the programme has been modelled on a national uptake of 75 % however in 2012/13 uptake, nationally, was 49 %. Ensuring a high percentage of those offered an NHS HC actually receive one is key to optimising the clinical and cost effectiveness of the programme. A pragmatic quasi-randomised controlled trial was conducted in four general practitioner practices in Medway, England with randomisation of 3511 patients. The aim was to compare attendance at the NHS HC using the standard national invitation template letter (control) compared to an enhanced invitation letter using insights from behavioural science (intervention). The intervention letter includes i) simplification - reducing letter content for less effortful processing ii) behavioural instruction - action focused language iii) personal salience - appointment due rather than invited and iv) addressing implementation intentions with a tear off slip to record the date, time and location of the appointment. Logistic Regression explored the association between control and intervention group and attendance at a health check. 29.3 % of patients who received the control letter and 33.5 % of those who received the intervention letter attended their NHS HC (adjusted odds ratio 1.26, 95 % confidence interval 1.09-1.47, p < 0.01). This was an absolute difference in uptake of 4.2 percentage points for those receiving the intervention letter. An invitation letter applying behavioural insights was more effective than the existing national template letter at encouraging attendance at an NHS HC. Making small, no cost behaviourally informed changes to letter invitations can improve uptake of the NHS HC. Further research is required to replicate the effect with more robust methodology and powered for sub-group analysis including socio-economic status. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN66757664 , date of registration 28/3/2014.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 155 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 17%
Researcher 21 13%
Student > Bachelor 21 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 8%
Other 30 19%
Unknown 28 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 28%
Psychology 24 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 10%
Unspecified 6 4%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Other 24 15%
Unknown 38 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 March 2020.
All research outputs
#1,677,801
of 17,367,552 outputs
Outputs from BMC Family Practice
#210
of 1,710 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,615
of 271,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Family Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,367,552 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,710 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 271,177 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them