Improving access to primary care and annual health checks for people who have a learning disability: a multistakeholder qualitative study

Stakeholders' perceptions and experiences of factors influencing the commissioning, delivery, and uptake of general health checks: a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

General health checks are integral to preventive services in many healthcare systems. They are offered, for example, through national programmes or commercial providers. Usually, general health checks consist of several screening tests to assess the overall health of clients who present without symptoms, aiming to reduce the population's morbidity and mortality. A 2019 Cochrane review of effectiveness studies suggested that general health checks have little or no effect on either all-cause mortality, cancer or cardiovascular mortality or cardiovascular morbidity. These findings emphasise the need to explore the values of different stakeholder groups associated with general health checks.

OBJECTIVES

To identify how stakeholders (i.e. healthcare managers or policymakers, healthcare providers, and clients) perceive and experience general health checks and experience influencing factors relevant to the commissioning, delivery and uptake of general health checks. Also, to supplement and contextualise the findings and conclusions of a 2019 Cochrane effectiveness review by Krogsbøll and colleagues.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) and conducted citation-based searches (e.g. reference lists, effectiveness review-associated studies and cited references in our included studies). The original searches cover the period from inception to August 2022. The results from the update search in September 2023 have not yet been incorporated.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included primary studies that utilised qualitative methods for data collection and analysis. Included studies explored perceptions and experiences of commissioning, delivery and uptake of general health checks. Stakeholders of interest were healthcare managers, policymakers, healthcare providers and adults who participate (clients) or do not participate (potential clients) in general health checks. The general health check had to include screening tests for at least two diseases or risk factors. We considered studies conducted in any country, setting, and language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We applied a prespecified sampling frame to purposefully sample a variety of eligible studies. This sampling approach allowed us to capture conceptually rich studies that described the viewpoints of different stakeholder groups from diverse geographical regions and different settings. Using the framework synthesis approach, we developed a framework representing individual, intervention and contextual factors, which guided data extraction and synthesis. We assessed the methodological limitations of each study using an adapted version of the Critical Appraisals Skills Programme (CASP) tool. We applied the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and forty-six studies met the inclusion criteria, and we sampled 36 of these for our analysis. While most of the studies were set in high-income countries in Europe, nearly a third (11/36) were set in culturally diverse middle-income countries across Eastern Europe, South and Southeast Asia, and Latin America. Sixteen sampled studies were conducted in primary and community healthcare settings, four in workplace settings and four in community settings. Included studies explored the perceptions and experiences of clients (n = 25), healthcare providers (n = 15) and healthcare managers or commissioners (n = 9). We grouped the findings at the individual level, intervention level and surrounding context. The findings at the individual level mainly reflect the client's perspective. General health checks helped motivate most clients to change their lifestyles. They were trusted to assess their health objectively, finding reassurance through professional confirmation (moderate confidence). However, those who feared negative results or relied on symptom-based care were more reluctant to attend (moderate confidence). Perceptions of disease, risk factors and prevention affected uptake (high confidence). Some clients felt an obligation to their families and society to maintain and improve their health through general health checks (moderate confidence). Healthcare providers played a crucial role in motivating participation, but negative experiences with unqualified providers discouraged attendance (moderate confidence). The availability and accessibility of general health checks and awareness systems played significant roles in clients' decision-making. Factors such as time and concerns that health insurance may not cover potential treatment costs influenced attendance (moderate confidence). The findings at the intervention level drew on the perspectives of all three stakeholder groups, with a strong focus on the healthcare provider's perspective. Healthcare providers and clients considered it essential that general health check providers were skilled and culturally competent (high confidence). Barriers to delivery included time competition with curative care, staff changes and shortages, resource limitations, technical issues, and reimbursement challenges (moderate confidence). Stakeholders thought innovative and diverse settings might improve access (moderate confidence). The evidence suggests that clients appreciated a comprehensive approach, with various tests. At the same time, healthcare providers deemed individualised approaches tailored to clients' health risks suitable, focusing on improving rather than abandoning general health checks (low confidence). The perspectives on the effectiveness of general health checks differed among healthcare commissioners, managers, providers, and clients (moderate confidence). Healthcare providers and clients recognised the importance of information, invitation systems, and educational approaches to create awareness of general health check availability and their respective advantages or disadvantages (moderate confidence). Clients considered explaining test results and providing recommendations as key elements of general health checks (low confidence). We have low or very low confidence in findings related to the contextual level and reasons for commissioning general health checks. The evidence suggests that cultural background, social norms, religion, gender, and language shape the perception of prevention and disease, thereby influencing the uptake of general health checks. Policymakers thought that a favourable political climate and support from various stakeholders are needed to establish general health checks.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the lack of effectiveness in the quantitative review, our findings showed that general health checks remain popular amongst clients, healthcare providers, managers and policymakers across countries and settings. Our data did not offer strong evidence on why these are commissioned, but it did point to these interventions being valued in contexts where general health checks have long been established. General health checks fulfil specific wants and needs, and de-implementation strategies may need to offer alternatives before a constructive debate can take place about fundamental changes to this widely popular or, at least, accepted service.

Access to healthcare for people with intellectual disability: a scoping review

AIMS

People with intellectual disability experience stark health inequalities, often because of poor access to mainstream healthcare. This scoping review aimed to identify factors that influence access to healthcare for people with intellectual disability using Levesque and colleagues' comprehensive framework of healthcare access.

METHOD

This review followed Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. Articles were identified and retrieved from CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed and EMBASE. Two reviewers completed abstract and full-text screening, addressing any conflicts at each stage. Data was extracted and coded deductively, according to the supply (healthcare provider) and demand (healthcare seeker) dimensions of Levesque and colleagues' framework.

RESULTS

Following search and screening, 66 references were included for review. Barriers to healthcare were more frequently identified in the literature compared to facilitators, with most information relating to supply-side dimensions. Barriers were related to inaccessible health information, low health literacy, stigma and discrimination by healthcare providers, and lack of organisational support, training and resourcing in both healthcare and support sectors. Facilitators often involved specialist workforces, strong interpersonal skills among healthcare providers, and advocacy from supporters. Importantly, findings indicated that both sociohistorical processes and support networks are necessary to understanding access experiences for people with intellectual disability.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater efforts are required internationally to ensure the health rights of people with intellectual disability, to eliminate discrimination, and provide the support and resources necessary for all stakeholders to facilitate healthcare access. Models of healthcare access for people with intellectual disability should consider both the role of supporters and the sociohistorical context within which healthcare access occurs.

Primary care experiences of adults reporting learning disability: a probability sample survey

BACKGROUND

Adults with learning disability face multiple adversities, but evidence on their needs and primary care experiences is limited.

AIM

To compare the characteristics and primary care experiences of adults reporting learning disability with those who did not.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This was an analysis of the 2022 General Practice Patient Survey, a national probability sample survey conducted in 2022 with people registered with NHS primary care in England.

METHOD

This analysis reports descriptive profiles, weighted and with 95% confidence intervals. Logistic regression models adjusting for gender, age, ethnicity, and area-level deprivation compared experiences of adults reporting learning disability with those who did not.

RESULTS

Survey participants comprised 623 157 people aged ≥16 years, including 6711 reporting learning disability. Adults reporting learning disability were more likely to be male, younger, of mixed or multiple ethnicities, and live in more deprived areas. All chronic conditions included in the survey were more common in adults reporting learning disability, especially reported sensory, neurodevelopmental, neurological, and mental health conditions. Adults reporting learning disability were twice as likely to have a preferred GP, and less likely to find their practice's website easy to navigate. They were also less likely to have confidence and trust in their healthcare professional, or feel their needs were met.

CONCLUSION

Adults reporting a learning disability had a higher likelihood of chronic health conditions. Their reported experiences of primary care indicate that, despite recent initiatives to improve services offered, further adaptations to the consistency and ease of access to primary care is needed.

Identifying barriers and facilitators to primary care practitioners implementing health assessments for people with intellectual disability: a Theoretical Domains Framework-informed scoping review

INTRODUCTION

People with intellectual disability experience poorer health outcomes compared with the general population, partly due to the difficulties of accessing preventive care in primary care settings. There is good evidence that structured annual health assessments can enhance quality of care for people with intellectual disability, and their use has become recommended policy in several high-income countries. However, uptake remains low. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) offers a conceptual structure for understanding barriers to implementation and has been usefully applied to inform implementation of health assessments for other high-need groups, but not for people with intellectual disability. We conducted a scoping review of the literature, using the TDF, to identify barriers and facilitators influencing primary care practitioners' implementation of annual health assessments for people with intellectual disability as part of routine primary care practice.

METHODS

This study was conducted according to the JBI methodological approach for scoping reviews. Searches were conducted in Medline (OVID-SP), Embase (OVID-SP), PsycINFO (OVID-SP), CINHAL (EBSCO), Scopus (Elsevier) and Web of Science (Clarivate) for relevant peer-reviewed publications up to May 2023. Screening, full-text review and data extraction were completed by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted and mapped to the TDF to identify relevant barriers and facilitators.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1057 publications, with 21 meeting the inclusion criteria. Mapping data to the TDF, the most frequently identified domains were (a) environmental context and resources, (b) skills, (c) knowledge and (d) emotion. Predominant factors impacting on implementation included practitioners' lack of awareness about health assessments and their identified benefits; inadequate training and experience by practitioners in the delivery of health assessments for people with intellectual disability; insufficient time to provide health assessments; and practitioner burnout.

CONCLUSION

Using a theory-informed behavioural framework, our review aids understanding of the barriers and facilitators to improving the implementation of health assessments as part of routine care for people with intellectual disability. However, there is a clear need for further qualitative research to examine the perceptions of primary care practitioners regarding implementation barriers and facilitators to health assessments in general, including views from practitioners who are not currently undertaking health assessments.

Cancer risk-factor and symptom awareness among adults with intellectual disabilities, paid and unpaid carers, and healthcare practitioners: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

The physical health of people with intellectual disabilities (ID) has been identified as an area of ongoing concern and priority. Research has increasingly focused on cancer, with studies indicating that people with ID are at an increased risk of cancer and of mortality, compared with the general population. This review aims to systematically identify and synthesise the published academic literature exploring cancer risk-factor and symptom awareness among people with IDs, carers and healthcare professionals.

METHODS

In line with Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) framework for scoping reviews, five incremental stages were followed: (1) identifying research question, (2) identifying relevant studies, (3) study selection, (4) extracting and charting of data, and (5) collating, summarising and reporting results. Findings were reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-Scr).

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 352 records, 16 records met all eligibility criteria and were included for review. The studies address a range of areas including knowledge and awareness of cancer risk-factors and symptoms and interventions to promote awareness of cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer risk-factor and symptom awareness is low among adults with ID, paid and unpaid carers and healthcare practitioners (HCPs). Theoretically underpinned, co-designed tools and interventions to improve awareness are lacking. There is uncertainty surrounding how to best support people with ID in raising cancer awareness, even within the professional healthcare environment. There is a predominance of research on breast cancer awareness. Future studies focusing on other cancers are needed to build a complete picture of awareness among adults with IDs, paid and unpaid carers, and HCPs.

Towards developing an intervention to support periodic health checks for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities: Striving for health equity

BACKGROUND

Although the Canadian Consensus Guidelines for Primary Care of Adults with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities recommends conducting periodic health checks in primary care, uptake is lacking. This study seeks to understand factors influencing the conduct of periodic health checks and identify what needs to change to increase them.

METHOD

Qualitative data from five stakeholder groups (adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities, primary care providers, administrative staff, family, disability support workers) was guided by the Behaviour Change Wheel and the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify barriers and 'what needs to change' to support periodic health checks.

RESULTS

Stakeholders (n = 41) voiced multiple barriers. A total of 31 common and 2 unique themes were identified plus 33 items 'needing to change'.

CONCLUSION

Despite barriers, stakeholders saw merit in periodic health checks as a preventative and equitable healthcare offering for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Results will inform future intervention development steps.