Effects of a Co-Design-Based Invitation Strategy on Participation in a Preventive Health Check Program: Randomized Controlled Trial

Trine Thilsing, Lars Bruun Larsen, Anders Larrabee Sonderlund, Signe Skaarup Andreassen, Jeanette Reffstrup Christensen, Nanna Herning Svensson, Marie Dahl, Jens Sondergaard, Trine Thilsing, Lars Bruun Larsen, Anders Larrabee Sonderlund, Signe Skaarup Andreassen, Jeanette Reffstrup Christensen, Nanna Herning Svensson, Marie Dahl, Jens Sondergaard

Abstract

Background: Preventive primary care programs that aim to reduce morbidity and mortality from lifestyle-related diseases are often affected by low-to-moderate participation rates. Improving participation rates is essential for clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. In 2016-2017, we conducted a pilot study (TOF pilot1) for a preventive primary care intervention (TOF is the Danish abbreviation for "Early Detection and Prevention"). Among 8814 invited patients, 3545 (40.22%) consented to participate, with the highest participation rates among women and patients with higher income, education, and employment.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of a revised invitation strategy on invitation comprehensibility, the overall participation rate, and participant demography. The new strategy specifically targeted men and patients of low educational attainment.

Methods: This study was embedded in the second TOF pilot study (TOF pilot2, initiated in October 2018) that tested an adjusted intervention. The revised invitation strategy comprised a prenotification postcard and a new invitation that specifically targeted men and patients of low educational attainment. The new invitation was developed in a co-design process that included communication professionals and target-group representatives. The study sample consisted of 4633 patients aged between 29 and 59 years, who resided in one of two municipalities in the Region of Southern Denmark. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to one of four invitation groups. The control group (Group 1) received the original invitation used in TOF pilot1. The intervention groups received the original invitation and the prenotification postcard (Group 2), the new revised invitation and the prenotification postcard (Group 3), or the new invitation but no prenotification postcard (Group 4).

Results: Overall, 2171 (46.86%) patients consented to participate. Compared to the control group, participation rates increased significantly in all three intervention groups (all P<.001). Participation across the three intervention groups increased for women and men, as well as for patients with high and low educational attainment and high and low family income. The largest relative increase in participation rates occurred among men, patients with low educational attainment, and patients with low family income. No increase in participation was detected for unemployed patients or patients of non-Danish origin. Most participants found the original (813/987, 82.37%) and new (965/1133, 85.17%) invitations easy to understand with no significant difference (P=.08) in comprehensibility between invitations.

Conclusions: The results suggest that participation in preventive primary care interventions can be greatly increased by implementing a co-design-based invitation strategy that includes prenotification postcards and targeted invitations. Although firm conclusions cannot be made from this study, the observed increased participation rates for men and patients of low socioeconomic status may be relevant in programs that aim to reduce social inequality in health.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03913585; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT03913585.

Keywords: co-design; invitation letter; participation rate; prenotification; preventive health checks; primary care.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Trine Thilsing, Lars Bruun Larsen, Anders Larrabee Sonderlund, Signe Skaarup Andreassen, Jeanette Reffstrup Christensen, Nanna Herning Svensson, Marie Dahl, Jens Sondergaard. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (http://publichealth.jmir.org), 10.03.2021.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of a preventive primary care program (TOF pilot2) from initial sampling of patients to participation rates in each of four invitation groups. GP: general practitioner.

References

    1. van den Brekel-Dijkstra K, Rengers AH, Niessen MAJ, de Wit NJ, Kraaijenhagen RA. Personalized prevention approach with use of a web-based cardiovascular risk assessment with tailored lifestyle follow-up in primary care practice--a pilot study. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2016 Mar;23(5):544–51. doi: 10.1177/2047487315591441.
    1. Larsen LB, Sondergaard J, Thomsen JL, Halling A, Sønderlund AL, Christensen JR, Thilsing T. Digital Recruitment and Acceptance of a Stepwise Model to Prevent Chronic Disease in the Danish Primary Care Sector: Cross-Sectional Study. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Jan 21;21(1):e11658. doi: 10.2196/11658.
    1. Dryden R, Williams B, McCowan C, Themessl-Huber M. What do we know about who does and does not attend general health checks? Findings from a narrative scoping review. BMC Public Health. 2012 Aug 31;12(1):723. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-723.
    1. Van der Meer V, Nielen MM, Drenthen AJ, Van Vliet M, Assendelft WJ, Schellevis FG. Cardiometabolic prevention consultation in the Netherlands: screening uptake and detection of cardiometabolic risk factors and diseases--a pilot study. BMC Fam Pract. 2013 Feb 26;14(1):29. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-14-29.
    1. Bender AM, Jørgensen T, Helbech B, Linneberg A, Pisinger C. Socioeconomic position and participation in baseline and follow-up visits: the Inter99 study. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2014 Jul;21(7):899–905. doi: 10.1177/2047487312472076.
    1. Bjerregaard AL, Maindal HT, Bruun NH, Sandbæk A. Patterns of attendance to health checks in a municipality setting: the Danish 'Check Your Health Preventive Program'. Prev Med Rep. 2017 Mar;5:175–182. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.12.011.
    1. Harte E, MacLure C, Martin A, Saunders CL, Meads C, Walter FM, Griffin SJ, Mant J, Usher-Smith JA. Reasons why people do not attend NHS Health Checks: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis. Br J Gen Pract. 2017 Dec 04;68(666):e28–e35. doi: 10.3399/bjgp17x693929.
    1. Koitsalu M, Eklund M, Adolfsson J, Grönberg H, Brandberg Y. Effects of pre-notification, invitation length, questionnaire length and reminder on participation rate: a quasi-randomised controlled trial. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Jan 05;18(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0467-5.
    1. de Waard AM, Wändell PE, Holzmann MJ, Korevaar JC, Hollander M, Gornitzki C, de Wit NJ, Schellevis FG, Lionis C, Søndergaard J, Seifert B, Carlsson AC, SPIMEU Research Group Barriers and facilitators to participation in a health check for cardiometabolic diseases in primary care: A systematic review. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2018 Aug 19;25(12):1326–1340. doi: 10.1177/2047487318780751.
    1. Kiernan M, Phillips K, Fair JM, King AC. Using direct mail to recruit Hispanic adults into a dietary intervention: an experimental study. Ann Behav Med. 2000;22(1):89–93. doi: 10.1007/BF02895172.
    1. Sallis A, Bunten A, Bonus A, James A, Chadborn T, Berry D. The effectiveness of an enhanced invitation letter on uptake of National Health Service Health Checks in primary care: a pragmatic quasi-randomised controlled trial. BMC Fam Pract. 2016 Mar 24;17(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s12875-016-0426-y.
    1. van Wonderen KE, Mohrs J, Ijff M, Bindels PJE, ter Riet G. Two simple strategies (adding a logo or a senior faculty's signature) failed to improve patient participation rates in a cohort study: randomized trial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Oct;61(10):971–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.05.008.
    1. Gidlow CJ, Ellis NJ, Riley V, Chadborn T, Bunten A, Iqbal Z, Ahmed A, Fisher A, Sugden D, Clark-Carter D. Randomised controlled trial comparing uptake of NHS Health Check in response to standard letters, risk-personalised letters and telephone invitations. BMC Public Health. 2019 Feb 21;19(1):224. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-6540-8.
    1. Larsen LB, Sonderlund AL, Sondergaard J, Thomsen JL, Halling A, Hvidt NC, Hvidt EA, Mønsted T, Pedersen LB, Roos EM, Pedersen PV, Thilsing T. Targeted prevention in primary care aimed at lifestyle-related diseases: a study protocol for a non-randomised pilot study. BMC Fam Pract. 2018 Jul 21;19(1):124. doi: 10.1186/s12875-018-0820-8.
    1. Larsen LB, Sondergaard J, Thomsen JL, Halling A, Sønderlund AL, Christensen JR, Thilsing T. Step-wise approach to prevention of chronic diseases in the Danish primary care sector with the use of a personal digital health profile and targeted follow-up - an assessment of attendance. BMC Public Health. 2019 Aug 13;19(1):1092. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7419-4.
    1. Statistik om Digital Post. Digitaliseringsstyrelsen. [2020-11-02].
    1. Sommer I, Griebler U, Mahlknecht P, Thaler K, Bouskill K, Gartlehner G, Mendis S. Socioeconomic inequalities in non-communicable diseases and their risk factors: an overview of systematic reviews. BMC Public Health. 2015 Sep 18;15(1):914. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-2227-y.
    1. Di Tanna GL, Wirtz H, Burrows KL, Globe G. Evaluating risk prediction models for adults with heart failure: A systematic literature review. PLoS ONE. 2020 Jan 15;15(1):e0224135. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224135.
    1. Steen M, Manshot M, De Koning N. Benefits of Co-design in Service Design Projects. International Journal of Design. 2011;5(2):53–60.
    1. Men's Health Society, Denmark. [2020-11-09]. .
    1. Ley P. Communicating with Patients: Improving Communication, Satisfaction, and Compliance. Kent, UK: Croom Helm Ltd; 1988.
    1. Chinn D. An empirical examination of the use of Easy Read health information in health consultations involving patients with intellectual disabilities. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2020 Mar;33(2):232–247. doi: 10.1111/jar.12657.
    1. Thygesen M. Sundhedskampagner og social ulighed i sundhed - Hvordan kortuddannede forstår og bruger sundhedskampagner. University of Southern Denmark. 2013. [2021-02-28]. .
    1. Et forebyggelses- og egenomsorgsprojekt målrettet mænd i et samarbejde mellem Ringkøbing-Skjern Kommune og Region Midtjylland. Sund Mand. 2017. [2020-11-02]. .
    1. Mænds Mødesteder - Sønderborg. 2020. [2020-11-02]. .
    1. Borch I, Fischer L. Spørg hvorfor: Sådan skaber du meningsfulde kvalitative undersøgelser med kunder og brugere. 1. udgave ed. Nyt Teknisk Forlag. Odense, Denmark: Nyt Teknisk Forlag; 2012.
    1. Kastarinen MJ, Puska PM, Korhonen MH, Mustonen JN, Salomaa VV, Sundvall JE, Tuomilehto JO, Uusitupa MI, Nissinen AM, LIHEF Study Group Non-pharmacological treatment of hypertension in primary health care: a 2-year open randomized controlled trial of lifestyle intervention against hypertension in eastern Finland. J Hypertens. 2002 Dec;20(12):2505–12. doi: 10.1097/00004872-200212000-00031.
    1. Roderick P, Ruddock V, Hunt P, Miller G. A randomized trial to evaluate the effectiveness of dietary advice by practice nurses in lowering diet-related coronary heart disease risk. Br J Gen Pract. 1997 Jan;47(414):7–12.
    1. Baron J, Gleason R, Crowe B, Mann J. Preliminary trial of the effect of general practice based nutritional advice. Br J Gen Pract. 1990 Apr;40(333):137–41.
    1. No authors listed Effectiveness of health checks conducted by nurses in primary care: final results of the OXCHECK study. Imperial Cancer Research Fund OXCHECK Study Group. BMJ. 1995 Apr 29;310(6987):1099–104.
    1. Ranganathan P, Aggarwal R, Pramesh C. Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: Odds versus risk. Perspect Clin Res. 2015;6(4):222–4. doi: 10.4103/2229-3485.167092.
    1. An Adjusted Preventive Program Against Lifestyle Related Diseases (TOFpilot2) . [2020-11-02]. .
    1. Robroek SJ, van Lenthe FJ, van Empelen P, Burdorf A. Determinants of participation in worksite health promotion programmes: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2009 May 20;6:26. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-6-26.
    1. Kwok C, Endrawes G, Lee CF. Cultural Beliefs and Attitudes About Breast Cancer and Screening Practices Among Arabic Women in Australia. Cancer Nurs. 2016;39(5):367–74. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0000000000000325.
    1. Ray-Mazumder S. Role of gender, insurance status and culture in attitudes and health behavior in a US Chinese student population. Ethn Health. 2001;6(3-4):197–209. doi: 10.1080/13557850120078125.
    1. Kessler RC, House JS, Turner JB. Unemployment and health in a community sample. J Health Soc Behav. 1987 Mar;28(1):51–9.
    1. Virtanen P, Liukkonen V, Vahtera J, Kivimäki M, Koskenvuo M. Health inequalities in the workforce: the labour market core-periphery structure. Int J Epidemiol. 2003 Dec;32(6):1015–21. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyg319.
    1. Edwards PJ, Roberts I, Clarke MJ, Diguiseppi C, Wentz R, Kwan I, Cooper R, Felix LM, Pratap S. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jul 08;(3):MR000008. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000008.pub4.
    1. Dahl M, Lindholt J, Søgaard R, Frost L, Andersen LS, Lorentzen V. An interview-based study of nonattendance at screening for cardiovascular diseases and diabetes in older women: Nonattendees' perspectives. J Clin Nurs. 2018 Mar;27(5-6):939–948. doi: 10.1111/jocn.14018.
    1. Economic Modelling for Vascular Checks. Department of Health, Vascular Policy Team. 2008. [2020-11-02]. .
    1. Harkins C, Shaw R, Gillies M, Sloan H, Macintyre K, Scoular A, Morrison C, Mackay F, Cunningham H, Docherty P, Macintyre P, Findlay IN. Overcoming barriers to engaging socio-economically disadvantaged populations in CHD primary prevention: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2010 Jul 02;10:391. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-391.
    1. Sinclair A, Alexander HA. Using outreach to involve the hard-to-reach in a health check: what difference does it make? Public Health. 2012 Feb;126(2):87–95. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2011.11.004.
    1. Kósa K, Katona C, Papp M, Fürjes G, Sándor J, Bíró K, Ádány R. Health mediators as members of multidisciplinary group practice: lessons learned from a primary health care model programme in Hungary. BMC Fam Pract. 2020 Jan 28;21(1):19. doi: 10.1186/s12875-020-1092-7.
    1. Cook EJ, Sharp C, Randhawa G, Guppy A, Gangotra R, Cox J. Who uses NHS health checks? Investigating the impact of ethnicity and gender and method of invitation on uptake of NHS health checks. Int J Equity Health. 2016 Jan 20;15:13. doi: 10.1186/s12939-016-0303-2.
    1. Ebert JF, Huibers L, Christensen B, Christensen MB. Paper- or Web-Based Questionnaire Invitations as a Method for Data Collection: Cross-Sectional Comparative Study of Differences in Response Rate, Completeness of Data, and Financial Cost. J Med Internet Res. 2018 Jan 23;20(1):e24. doi: 10.2196/jmir.8353.
    1. Pedersen KM, Andersen JS, Søndergaard J. General practice and primary health care in Denmark. J Am Board Fam Med. 2012 Mar;25 Suppl 1:S34–8. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2012.02.110216.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner