Research

Fidelity of the delivery of NHS Health Checks in general practice: an observational study

Ben Paxton, Katie Mills and Juliet A Usher-Smith
BJGP Open 2020; 4 (4): bjgpopen20X101077. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgpopen20X101077

Abstract

Background The NHS Health Check programme aims to reduce the risk of common preventable diseases by providing risk information and behaviour change advice. Failure to deliver the consultation appropriately could undermine its efficacy. To date, to the authors’ knowledge, there are no published data on the fidelity of delivery of NHS Health Checks.

Aim To assess the fidelity of delivery of NHS Health Checks in general practice.

Design & setting Fidelity assessment of video and audio recordings of NHS Health Check consultations conducted in four GP practices across the East of England.

Method A secondary analysis of 38 NHS Health Check consultations, which were video or audio recorded as part of a pilot study of introducing discussions of cancer risk into NHS Health Checks. Using a checklist based on the NHS Health Check Best Practice Guidance, fidelity of delivery was assessed as the proportion of key elements completed during the consultations.

Results The mean number of elements of the NHS Health Check completed across all consultations was 14.5/18 (80.6%), with a range of 10 to 17 (55.6% to 94.4%). The mean fidelity for risk assessment, risk communication, and risk management sections was 8.7/10 (87.0%), 4.1/5 (82.0%), and 1.7/3 (56.7%), respectively. Clinically appropriate lifestyle advice was given in 34/38 consultations. Elements with the lowest fidelity were ethnicity assessment (n = 12/38; 31.6%), family history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) assessment (n = 25/38; 65.8%), AUDIT-C communication (n = 13/38; 34.2%), and dementia risk management (n = 6/38; 15.8%).

Conclusion Although fidelity of delivery was high overall, important elements of the NHS Health Check were being regularly omitted. Opportunities for behaviour change, particularly relating to alcohol consumption and dementia risk management, may be being missed.

How this fits in

There is disagreement over the value of the NHS Health Check programme. Retrospective analyses of patient records have demonstrated variation in delivery. This is the first study to assess fidelity following observation of recordings of NHS Health Checks. It shows that although fidelity of delivery was high overall, opportunities for behaviour change, particularly relating to alcohol consumption and dementia risk management, may be being missed.

Introduction

The NHS Health Check programme was introduced in England in 2009 as a primary prevention initiative that aims to prevent CVD through provision of risk information and behaviour change advice.1 Since 2013, >6 million people have received an NHS Health Check, making it one of the largest public health prevention programmes in the world.1

The NHS Health Check has three sections: risk assessment, risk communication, and risk management. The consultation encompasses a risk assessment for CVD, alongside diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease (CKD). The risk of developing CVD in the next 10 years should be assessed using the QRISK2 tool.2 The QRISK2 score should then be communicated alongside body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, cholesterol, and the AUDIT-C score that describes levels of alcohol consumption.3 These results should then form the basis of a discussion about risk management, encompassing lifestyle advice in line with recommendations from the UK Chief Medical Office (to maintain a BMI between 18.5 and 24.9 kg/m2, an alcohol consumption rate of ≤14 units/week,4 do >150 minutes of moderate intensity exercise/week,5 and to not smoke), and medical management options, including prescription of statins and antihypertensive medication.

Although there is strong evidence for each of the risk management options individually, the introduction of the programme has not been without controversy,6–8 and the benefits of the programme have been smaller than in early modelling.9–13 Alongside an increasing focus on prevention generally, however, both the NHS Long Term Plan14 and prevention ‘green paper’, published in July 2019,15 cite the importance of NHS Health Checks in the future. Understanding how well the programme is currently being delivered, and whether it is being delivered as intended (that is, the ‘fidelity’),16 is therefore important. Fidelity has been shown to affect both patient outcomes17 and the conclusions that are drawn in a research context.18 It also forms an important part of intervention evaluation19 and can highlight areas for improvement.20

Previous studies have reported aspects of the delivery.21,22 However, these studies have used retrospective analyses of patient records, which may not accurately reflect the content of a consultation.23 To date, to the authors’ knowledge, there are no published data reporting fidelity of NHS Health Check delivery based on observation of consultations. This study, therefore, aimed to use video and audio recordings of NHS Health Checks in order to assess the fidelity of delivery against that specified by NHS Health Check Best Practice Guidance,1 and help maximise the impact and inform the future of the programme.

Method

Study design and setting

This study was embedded within a pilot study, in which a very brief intervention to share personalised cancer risk information and promote behaviour change was delivered within NHS Health Checks.24 Four general practices from across the East of England invited patients to receive a standard NHS Health Check or an extended consultation, during which they also received the very brief cancer intervention. The practices were recruited with the support of the local Clinical Research Network. All four were medium-sized urban practices with list sizes between 8000 and 13 000, and serving a predominantly white population. Based on an overall measure of multiple deprivation experienced by people in the area, three practices were in the two least deprived deciles and the fourth in the fourth least deprived decile. In each general practice, the NHS Health Checks were delivered by a member of the practice nursing team. All used an electronic healthcare record system (SystmOne) that includes a template to complete during the consultation.

Participants

Each of the four general practices conducted a search of their electronic records for patients who were eligible for an NHS Health Check. This included patients without an existing diagnosis of CVD, CKD, diabetes, hypertension, or hypercholesterolaemia, and not being prescribed statins, or previously been found to have a CVD risk over 20%. Those with a current diagnosis or medical history of cancer or dementia were additionally excluded in this study. Eligible patients were invited by their GP practice to participate in the study. Written informed consent was obtained from each healthcare professional (HCP) and patient before and after the consultation by a member of the study team.

In total, 742 patients were invited to attend an NHS Health Check and participate in the pilot study. Of these, 114 (15.4%) attended without participating in the pilot study, while 41 (5.5%) attended an NHS Health Check within the study, with 34 (4.6%) receiving the cancer risk intervention. One participant withdrew from the study following their consultation, and two did not consent to recording of the consultation. This analysis is, therefore, based on 38 consultations.

Data collection

Consultations took place between July 2018 and March 2019. Patients completed three questionnaires as part of the wider pilot study: one at baseline prior to the consultation, one immediately afterwards, and one 3 months later. Only data collected at baseline were used in this study. Consultations were video (n = 31) or audio (n = 7) recorded, dependent on patients’ preference.

Assessment of fidelity

An initial coding framework based on the NHS Health Check Best Practice Guidance was developed to assess fidelity of intervention delivery. One researcher piloted this with four consultations. It was then modified following discussion with the other two researchers. The final coding framework included 18 key elements (Table 1).

View this table:
Table 1. NHS Health Check fidelity checklist based on NHS Health Check Best Practice Guidance1

One researcher then assessed fidelity of all consultations by watching the video recordings or listening to the audio recordings. Each element of the NHS Health Check was assessed as either completed (‘yes’) or not completed (‘no’). Where elements were assessed as not completed, this was subsequently checked by searching for relevant phrases within the written transcripts. A second researcher assessed five consultations (13.2%) to check intercoder reliability.

Analysis

For each consultation, fidelity was expressed as the proportion of elements of the NHS Health Check completed. Lifestyle advice was categorised based on the lifestyle risk factor it most closely related to: weight loss (including dietary changes), reducing alcohol consumption, increasing physical exercise, or smoking cessation. To identify whether clinically appropriate lifestyle advice was given, the authors determined whether a patient was outside of the UK Chief Medical Officer’s recommended ranges, and received lifestyle advice relating to at least one of these lifestyle factors. Patients who were within the recommended range for all four key lifestyle factors, but still received lifestyle advice, were included as having received clinically appropriate lifestyle advice.

Results

The characteristics of participants are shown in Table 2. The mean age was 52.2 years (standard deviation [SD] = 9.3); 68.4% (n = 26) were female; the majority were of white ethnicity (89.5%, n = 34); 50.0% (n = 19) reported a family history of CVD in a first-degree relative; and 18.4% (n = 7) had a QRISK2 score >10%.

View this table:
Table 2. Patient characteristics

The intervention was delivered by seven HCPs: three practice nurses and four healthcare assistants (HCAs).

Intercoder reliability for fidelity assessment was 90%. The mean total length of the NHS Health Check consultation was 14 minutes 38 seconds (SD = 5 minutes 58 seconds; confidence interval = 12 minutes 44 seconds to 16 minutes 31 seconds). There were no substantial differences in fidelity of delivery between the standard NHS Health Checks (n = 7) and the NHS Health Check plus cancer intervention (n = 31) (results not shown).

The overall fidelity assessment broken down by HCP is shown in Table 3. The mean number of elements completed across all consultations was 14.5/18 (80.6%), with a range of 10 to 17 (55.6% to 94.4%). The range of the mean number of elements completed by each HCP was 13.6 to 16 out of 18.

View this table:
Table 3. Overall fidelity assessment for each HCP

The mean fidelity for risk assessment, risk communication, and risk management sections was 8.7/10 (87.0%), 4.1/5 (82.0%), and 1.7/3 (56.7%), respectively. Table 4 shows the breakdown of fidelity for each of the elements within these sections. Elements with the lowest fidelity were ethnicity assessment (n = 12/38; 31.6%), family history of CVD assessment (n = 25/38; 65.8%), AUDIT-C communication (n = 13/38; 34.2%) and dementia risk management (n = 6/38; 15.8%) .

View this table:
Table 4. Fidelity by NHS Health Check element

For dementia risk management, patients were made aware ‘that the risk factors for cardiovascular disease are the same as those for dementia’ in only 15.8% (n = 6/38) of consultations. Of those aged 65 to 74 years (n = 3), who are required to also be signposted to further support where appropriate, 100% were offered further support.

Lifestyle advice was given in 89.5% (n = 34/38) consultations. Of the patients who were not already meeting the recommendations for ≥1 of the lifestyle factors, 87.5% (n = 28/32) received clinically appropriate lifestyle advice for at least one of the factors while 12.5% (n = 4/32) patients received no lifestyle advice (Table 5). Alcohol consumption advice was the lifestyle advice given least often for patients where it would have been clinically appropriate.

View this table:
Table 5. Clinically appropriate lifestyle advice

Discussion

Summary

To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to report fidelity of NHS Health Check delivery based on the assessment of recorded consultations. This study has shown that although overall fidelity of delivery was high among the sample of consultations included in this study, important elements of the NHS Health Check were regularly omitted.

In particular, this study shows that less than a third of patients were directly asked their ethnicity as part of the risk assessment, despite ethnicity being included as a risk factor within the QRISK2 calculation, and screening guidelines for hypertension and CKD, and CVD risk, being known to vary between ethnic groups.25 The AUDIT-C score was also communicated in only 34.2% of consultations, compared with BMI and cholesterol, which were communicated to 92.1% and 89.5% of patients, respectively. Dementia risk messaging was completed in only a small minority of consultations (15.8%). This was despite all the HCPs in this study appearing to make use of templates that would have included these elements within the consultations. Such a difference between template guidance and activity has been reported previously.26 In this context, the low number of consultations in which the results of the AUDIT-C assessment and dementia risk were discussed may reflect either a lack of familiarity among HCPs with the N HS Health Check Best Practice G uidance and/or template, particularly for the dementia risk assessment that was only included in 2017; HCPs not feeling comfortable raising dementia with younger individuals or alcohol consumption more generally; or HCPs not considering those elements to be of benefit.

In contrast, this study found that overall fidelity of delivery of clinically appropriate lifestyle advice was high (n = 34/38 consultations; 89.5%), in keeping with the requirement that patients should receive clinically appropriate lifestyle advice ‘regardless of their risk scor e’.1

Strengths and limitations

The main strength of this study was the use of audio and video recordings to directly observe fidelity of delivery of the NHS Health Check. This approach, however, meant that only activity within the consultation itself was captured, and this assessment did not take account of pre-existing data on practice records or referrals that were made after the consultation. For this reason, this was not included in the fidelity assessment elements, which were likely to have been completed outside of the consultation itself, such as CKD risk assessment. However, this may still have affected some of the elements within the risk assessment section. It may, for example, explain the low percentage of consultations in which ethnicity was asked if data on ethnicity were already in the practice record.

The inclusion of cancer risk information at the end of the standard NHS Health Check as part of the pilot study for 31 patients, and the potential impact of this on normal delivery of the NHS Health Check, is another key limitation. Audio/video recording of consultations may also have changed the way in which HCPs delivered the NHS Health Check. The authors suggest, however, that since the emphasis of the pilot study, and the training delivered to the healthcare practitioners in relation to that, was on the cancer risk intervention, and delivery of the standard NHS Health Check was not mentioned, this effect would not have been significant. Although the numbers were small, this study also saw no substantial differences between delivery of the NHS Health Checks between the standard NHS Health Checks and those with the additional cancer risk information included.

While the small sample size of patients and HCPs enabled recording of the consultations and more in-depth assessment of delivery, the small numbers are also a limitation. Moreover, the study took place in four GP practices in one geographical area of the UK and, therefore, the authors of this study are unable to comment on regional variations. The participants were also predominantly of white ethnicity, well-educated, and many already met the lifestyle recommendations. This meant the authors are also unable to comment on whether HCPs might approach NHS Health Check consultations differently with different groups of individuals.

Finally, this study focused only on the fidelity of delivery of NHS Health Checks and did not assess the other domains of fidelity (design, training, receipt, and enactment).16 Additionally, only the adherence of the delivery was assessed, and not the quality.

Comparison with existing literature

While this is the first study, to the authors’ knowledge, to assess fidelity following observation of recording of NHS Health Checks, other studies have reported fidelity using retrospective analyses of patient records. Using data from a bespoke audit system, Baker et al 21 reported the variation in NHS Health Check completion across 83 GP practices in Gloucestershire. Consistent with this study's findings, they showed that alcohol assessment was comparatively low, with only 53.9% having a documented alcohol assessment. Documented assessments of smoking (83.2%), physical activity (87.8%), and cholesterol (75.7%) were higher, and closer to levels found in this study. Documented lifestyle advice was substantially lower though with only 31.1%, 66.9%, and 44.2% reported to have been given clinically appropriate advice or a referral relating to diet, smoking, and exercise, respectively.

Using data from electronic medical records from 1066 NHS Health Checks delivered across 13 practices in North West England, Krska et al 22 found similarly high levels of recorded risk assessment (>90%) and lifestyle advice given (80.6%). The levels of clinically appropriate lifestyle advice given for alcohol (92.9%) were higher than in the present study. The differences between these studies and the present study may be the result of regional differences or changes in practice over time, and may also reflect known inconsistencies between electronic documentation of consultations and direct observation.23

Previous studies have also reported reluctance among HCPs to discuss alcohol with patients. Reasons for this include concerns about the effect on the relationship with the patient, the stigma associated with alcohol, and lack of training.27,28 All these may contribute to the low rate of communication of the results of the AUDIT-C assessment seen within this study.

Implications for practice and research

For GPs and other HCPs involved in the delivery of NHS Health Checks, this study's findings particularly highlight the potential missed opportunities relating to dementia risk management and identifying those who may benefit from alcohol interventions. Dementia and alcohol training resources have been developed by Public Health England, and existing templates within electronic health records may be useful to improve the consistency of delivery of these elements. The use of risk reports29 may also improve communication. Further research with those delivering the NHS Health Checks is needed, however, to identify why these elements are being omitted, and if further training or resources are indeed the solution or if additional changes are needed. Until then, GPs in practices offering NHS Health Checks should review the delivery within their own practices to ensure that key opportunities for behaviour change, particularly those relating to dementia and alcohol, are not being missed.

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by a Cancer Research UK Prevention Fellowship (reference number: C55650/A21464). The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health. All researchers were independent of the funding body and the funder had no role in data collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or decision to submit the article for publication.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the East of England-Cambridge East NHS Research Ethics Committee (reference number: 18/EE/0001) and Health Research Authority on 6 March 2018. Written informed consent was obtained from each patient.

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank their patient and public representative Chris Girling, and their collaborators on the I-CaPP programme steering committee (Simon Griffin, Fiona Walter, Stephen Sutton, and Jackie Campbell) for their helpful comments in the development of the pilot study during which this assessment took place. The authors would also like to thank the healthcare professionals and patients who took part in the study and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Network: Eastern for their assistance in the recruitment of general practices.

Competing interests

The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  • Received December 29, 2019.
  • Accepted February 2, 2020.

This article is Open Access: CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Daly H,
    2. Thompson K,
    3. Kearney M
    (2017) NHS Health Check: best practice guidance (Public Health England, London).
  2. 2.↵
    1. Hippisley-Cox J,
    2. Coupland C,
    3. Vinogradova Y,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Predicting cardiovascular risk in England and Wales: prospective derivation and validation of QRISK2. BMJ 336(7659):1475–1482, doi:10.1136/bmj.39609.449676.25, pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18573856.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Bush K,
    2. Kivlahan DR,
    3. McDonell MB,
    4. et al.
    (1998) The AUDIT alcohol consumption questions (AUDIT-C): an effective brief screening test for problem drinking. Ambulatory Care Quality Improvement Project (ACQUIP). Alcohol use disorders identification test. Arch Intern Med 158(16):1789–1795, doi:10.1001/archinte.158.16.1789, pmid:9738608.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Department of Health
    (2016) UK Chief Medical Officers’ Low Risk Drinking Guidelines. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/545937/UK_CMOs__report.pdf. 10 Sep 2020.
  5. 5.↵
  6. 6.↵
    1. Capewell S,
    2. McCartney M,
    3. Holland W
    (2015) Invited debate: NHS Health Checks — a naked emperor? J Public Health (Oxf) 37(2):187–192, doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdv063, pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26022810.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.
    1. Krogsbøll LT,
    2. Jørgensen KJ,
    3. Gøtzsche PC
    (2013) General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease. JAMA 309(23):2489–2490, doi:10.1001/jama.2013.5039, pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23780462.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Krogsbøll LT,
    2. Jørgensen KJ,
    3. Grønhøj Larsen C,
    4. Gøtzsche PC
    (2012) General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease: cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 345:e7191, doi:10.1136/bmj.e7191, pmid:23169868.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Martin A,
    2. Saunders CL,
    3. Harte E,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Delivery and impact of the NHS health check in the first 8 years: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract 68(672):e449–e459, doi:10.3399/bjgp18X697649, pmid:29914882.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.
    1. Mytton OT,
    2. Jackson C,
    3. Steinacher A,
    4. et al.
    (2018) The current and potential health benefits of the National Health Service health check programme in England: a micro-simulation study. PLoS Med 15(3), doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002517, pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29509767. e1002517.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.
    1. Alageel S,
    2. Gulliford MC
    (2019) Health checks and cardiovascular risk factor values over six years' follow-up: matched cohort study using electronic health records in England. PLoS Med 16(7), doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002863, pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31361740. e1002863.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.
    1. Chang KCM,
    2. Vamos EP,
    3. Palladino R,
    4. et al.
    (2019) Impact of the NHS health check on inequalities in cardiovascular disease risk: a difference-in-differences matching analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health 73(1):11–18, doi:10.1136/jech-2018-210961, pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30282645.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Chattopadhyay K,
    2. Biswas M,
    3. Moore R
    (2020) NHS health check and healthy lifestyle in Leicester, England: analysis of a survey dataset. Perspect Public Health 140(1):27–37, doi:10.1177/1757913919834584, pmid:31070547.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. National Health Service
    (2019) Long term plan implementation framework. https://www.longtermplan.nhs.uk/implementation-framework. 10 Sep 2020.
  15. 15.↵
    1. Department of Health and Social Care
    (2019) Advancing our health: prevention in the 2020s — consultation document. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/advancing-our-health-prevention-in-the-2020s/advancing-our-health-prevention-in-the-2020s-consultation-document. 10 Sep 2020.
  16. 16.↵
    1. Borrelli B
    (2011) The assessment, monitoring, and enhancement of treatment fidelity in public health clinical trials. J Public Health Dent 71(5):52–63, doi:10.1111/j.1752-7325.2011.00233.x, pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21499543.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Durlak JA,
    2. DuPre EP
    (2008) Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol 41(3-4):327–350, doi:10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0, pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18322790.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Avery L,
    2. Charman SJ,
    3. Taylor L,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Systematic development of a theory-informed multifaceted behavioural intervention to increase physical activity of adults with type 2 diabetes in routine primary care: movement as medicine for type 2 diabetes. Implement Sci 11:99, doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0459-6, pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27430648.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Boutron I,
    2. Altman DG,
    3. Moher D,
    4. et al.
    (2017) Consort statement for randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatments: a 2017 update and a consort extension for nonpharmacologic trial abstracts. Ann Intern Med 167(1):40–47, doi:10.7326/M17-0046, pmid:28630973.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Lorencatto F,
    2. West R,
    3. Christopherson C,
    4. Michie S
    (2013) Assessing fidelity of delivery of smoking cessation behavioural support in practice. Implement Sci 8:40, doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-40, pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23557119.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Baker C,
    2. Loughren EA,
    3. Crone D,
    4. Kallfa N
    (2015) A process evaluation of the NHS health check care pathway in a primary care setting. J Public Health (Oxf) 37(2):202–209, doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdv053, pmid:25922370.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Krska J,
    2. du Plessis R,
    3. Chellaswamy H
    (2016) Implementation of NHS health checks in general practice: variation in delivery between practices and practitioners. Prim Health Care Res Dev 17(4):385–392, doi:10.1017/S1463423615000493, pmid:26522491.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Berdahl CT,
    2. Moran GJ,
    3. McBride O,
    4. et al.
    (2019) Concordance between electronic clinical documentation and physicians' observed behavior. JAMA Netw Open 2(9):e1911390, doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.11390, pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31532513.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Mills K,
    2. Griffin SJ,
    3. Sutton S,
    4. Usher-Smith JA
    (2020) Development and usability testing of a very brief intervention for personalised cancer risk assessment to promote behaviour change in primary care using normalisation process theory. Prim Health Care Res Dev 21:e1, doi:10.1017/S146342361900080X, pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31934843.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Lip GYH,
    2. Barnett AH,
    3. Bradbury A,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Ethnicity and cardiovascular disease prevention in the United Kingdom: a practical approach to management. J Hum Hypertens 21(3):183–211, doi:10.1038/sj.jhh.1002126, pmid:17301805.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Allison R,
    2. Lecky DM,
    3. Town K,
    4. et al.
    (2017) Exploring why a complex intervention piloted in general practices did not result in an increase in Chlamydia screening and diagnosis: a qualitative evaluation using the fidelity of implementation model. BMC Fam Pract 18(1):1–15, doi:10.1186/s12875-017-0618-0, pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28327096.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. McCormick KA,
    2. Cochran NE,
    3. Back AL,
    4. et al.
    (2006) How primary care providers talk to patients about alcohol: a qualitative study. J Gen Intern Med 21(9):966–972, doi:10.1007/BF02743146, pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16918743.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Nygaard P,
    2. Aasland OG
    (2011) Barriers to implementing screening and brief interventions in general practice: findings from a qualitative study in Norway. Alcohol Alcohol 46(1):52–60, doi:10.1093/alcalc/agq073, pmid:21059696.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Hawking MKD,
    2. Timmis A,
    3. Wilkins F,
    4. et al.
    (2019) Improving cardiovascular disease risk communication in NHS health checks: a qualitative study. BMJ Open 9(8), doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026058, pmid:31481364. e026058.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top

In this issue

BJGP Open
Vol. 4, Issue 4
October 2020
Download PDF
Email Article
Citation Tools
Fidelity of the delivery of NHS Health Checks in general practice: an observational study
Ben Paxton, Katie Mills, Juliet A Usher-Smith
BJGP Open 2020; 4 (4): bjgpopen20X101077. DOI: 10.3399/bjgpopen20X101077
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Keywords

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

 
 

British Journal of General Practice