Engaging with stakeholders to inform the development of a decision-support tool for the NHS health check programme: qualitative study.


Journal

BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 May 2020
Historique:
received: 18 06 2019
accepted: 29 04 2020
entrez: 13 5 2020
pubmed: 13 5 2020
medline: 26 11 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The NHS Health Check Programme is a risk-reduction programme offered to all adults in England aged 40-74 years. Previous studies mainly focused on patient perspectives and programme delivery; however, delivery varies, and costs are substantial. We were therefore working with key stakeholders to develop and co-produce an NHS Health Check Programme modelling tool (workHORSE) for commissioners to quantify local effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and equity. Here we report on Workshop 1, which specifically aimed to facilitate engagement with stakeholders; develop a shared understanding of current Health Check implementation; identify what is working well, less well, and future hopes; and explore features to include in the tool. This qualitative study identified key stakeholders across the UK via networking and snowball techniques. The stakeholders spanned local organisations (NHS commissioners, GPs, and academics), third sector and national organisations (Public Health England and The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence). We used the validated Hovmand "group model building" approach to engage stakeholders in a series of pre-piloted, structured, small group exercises. We then used Framework Analysis to analyse responses. Fifteen stakeholders participated in workshop 1. Stakeholders identified continued financial and political support for the NHS Health Check Programme. However, many stakeholders highlighted issues concerning lack of data on processes and outcomes, variability in quality of delivery, and suboptimal public engagement. Stakeholders' hopes included maximising coverage, uptake, and referrals, and producing additional evidence on population health, equity, and economic impacts. Key model suggestions focused on developing good-practice template scenarios, analysis of broader prevention activities at local level, accessible local data, broader economic perspectives, and fit-for-purpose outputs. A shared understanding of current implementations of the NHS Health Check Programme was developed. Stakeholders demonstrated their commitment to the NHS Health Check Programme whilst highlighting the perceived requirements for enhancing the service and discussed how the modelling tool could be instrumental in this process. These suggestions for improvement informed subsequent workshops and model development.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The NHS Health Check Programme is a risk-reduction programme offered to all adults in England aged 40-74 years. Previous studies mainly focused on patient perspectives and programme delivery; however, delivery varies, and costs are substantial. We were therefore working with key stakeholders to develop and co-produce an NHS Health Check Programme modelling tool (workHORSE) for commissioners to quantify local effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and equity. Here we report on Workshop 1, which specifically aimed to facilitate engagement with stakeholders; develop a shared understanding of current Health Check implementation; identify what is working well, less well, and future hopes; and explore features to include in the tool.
METHODS METHODS
This qualitative study identified key stakeholders across the UK via networking and snowball techniques. The stakeholders spanned local organisations (NHS commissioners, GPs, and academics), third sector and national organisations (Public Health England and The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence). We used the validated Hovmand "group model building" approach to engage stakeholders in a series of pre-piloted, structured, small group exercises. We then used Framework Analysis to analyse responses.
RESULTS RESULTS
Fifteen stakeholders participated in workshop 1. Stakeholders identified continued financial and political support for the NHS Health Check Programme. However, many stakeholders highlighted issues concerning lack of data on processes and outcomes, variability in quality of delivery, and suboptimal public engagement. Stakeholders' hopes included maximising coverage, uptake, and referrals, and producing additional evidence on population health, equity, and economic impacts. Key model suggestions focused on developing good-practice template scenarios, analysis of broader prevention activities at local level, accessible local data, broader economic perspectives, and fit-for-purpose outputs.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
A shared understanding of current implementations of the NHS Health Check Programme was developed. Stakeholders demonstrated their commitment to the NHS Health Check Programme whilst highlighting the perceived requirements for enhancing the service and discussed how the modelling tool could be instrumental in this process. These suggestions for improvement informed subsequent workshops and model development.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32393313
doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05268-5
pii: 10.1186/s12913-020-05268-5
pmc: PMC7212552
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

394

Subventions

Organisme : Health Technology Assessment Programme
ID : 16/165/-1

Références

Am J Prev Med. 2006 Feb;30(2):164-72
pubmed: 16459216
Public Health Res Pract. 2015 Jul 09;25(3):e2531531
pubmed: 26243490
Front Public Health. 2016 Dec 06;4:267
pubmed: 27999772
J Environ Manage. 2009 Apr;90(5):1933-49
pubmed: 19231064
Public Health. 2014 Jun;128(6):525-32
pubmed: 24916424
Br J Gen Pract. 2018 Jan;68(666):e28-e35
pubmed: 29203682
Value Health. 2015 Jan;18(1):5-16
pubmed: 25595229
Lancet. 2008 Nov 8;372(9650):1661-9
pubmed: 18994664
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2018 Dec 12;18(1):131
pubmed: 30541523
Health Res Policy Syst. 2017 Apr 26;15(1):35
pubmed: 28446185
PLoS Med. 2018 May 29;15(5):e1002573
pubmed: 29813056
Acad Med. 2014 Sep;89(9):1245-51
pubmed: 24979285
Br J Gen Pract. 2018 Jul;68(672):e449-e459
pubmed: 29914882

Auteurs

Lirije Hyseni (L)

Department of Public Health & Policy, University of Liverpool, 3rd floor Whelan Building, Room 3.09, Liverpool, L69 3GB, UK. L.hyseni@liverpool.ac.uk.

Maria Guzman-Castillo (M)

Department of Public Health & Policy, University of Liverpool, 3rd floor Whelan Building, Room 3.09, Liverpool, L69 3GB, UK.

Chris Kypridemos (C)

Department of Public Health & Policy, University of Liverpool, 3rd floor Whelan Building, Room 3.09, Liverpool, L69 3GB, UK.

Brendan Collins (B)

Department of Public Health & Policy, University of Liverpool, 3rd floor Whelan Building, Room 3.09, Liverpool, L69 3GB, UK.

Ellen Schwaller (E)

Department of Public Health & Policy, University of Liverpool, 3rd floor Whelan Building, Room 3.09, Liverpool, L69 3GB, UK.

Simon Capewell (S)

Department of Public Health & Policy, University of Liverpool, 3rd floor Whelan Building, Room 3.09, Liverpool, L69 3GB, UK.

Angela Boland (A)

Department of Health Services Research, Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Rumona Dickson (R)

Department of Health Services Research, Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Martin O'Flaherty (M)

Department of Public Health & Policy, University of Liverpool, 3rd floor Whelan Building, Room 3.09, Liverpool, L69 3GB, UK.

Kay Gallacher (K)

Department of Public Health & Policy, University of Liverpool, 3rd floor Whelan Building, Room 3.09, Liverpool, L69 3GB, UK.

Peter Hale (P)

Department of Public Health & Policy, University of Liverpool, 3rd floor Whelan Building, Room 3.09, Liverpool, L69 3GB, UK.

Ffion Lloyd-Williams (F)

Department of Public Health & Policy, University of Liverpool, 3rd floor Whelan Building, Room 3.09, Liverpool, L69 3GB, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH