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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| 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 Primary Care, 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 6 | 40% |
| Unknown | 9 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 40% |
| Members of the public | 4 | 27% |
| Scientists | 4 | 27% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 171 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 32 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 13% |
| Researcher | 21 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 27 | 16% |
| Unknown | 39 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 47 | 27% |
| Psychology | 25 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 21 | 12% |
| Unknown | 48 | 28% |
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
#2,693,203
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#325
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,429
of 314,825 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#7
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 314,825 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.