What affects response rates in primary healthcare-based programmes? An analysis of individual and unit-related factors associated with increased odds of non-response based on HCV screening in the general population in Poland

OBJECTIVES

Response rate in public health programmes may be a limiting factor. It is important to first consider their delivery and acceptability for the target. This study aimed at determining individual and unit-related factors associated with increased odds of non-response based on hepatitis C virus screening in primary healthcare.

DESIGN

Primary healthcare units (PHCUs) were extracted from the Register of Health Care Centres. Each of the PHCUs was to enrol adult patients selected on a random basis. Data on the recruitment of PHCUs and patients were analysed. Multilevel modelling was applied to investigate individual and unit-related factors associated with non-response. Multilevel logistic model was developed with fixed effects and only a random intercept for the unit. Preliminary analysis included a random effect for unit and each of the individual or PHCU covariates separately. For each of the PHCU covariates, we applied a two-level model with individual covariates, unit random effect and a single fixed effect of this unit covariate.

SETTING

This study was conducted in primary care units in selected provinces in Poland.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 242 PHCUs and 24 480 adults were invited. Of them, 44 PHCUs and 20 939 patients agreed to participate. Both PHCUs and patients were randomly selected.

RESULTS

Data on 44 PHCUs and 24 480 patients were analysed. PHCU-level factors and recruitment strategies were important predictors of non-response. Unit random effect was significant in all models. Larger and private units reported higher non-response rates, while for those with a history of running public health programmes the odds of non-response was lower. Proactive recruitment, more working hours devoted to the project and patient resulted in higher acceptance of the project. Higher number of personnel had no such effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Prior to the implementation of public health programme, several factors that could hinder its execution should be addressed.

The organisation and delivery of health improvement in general practice and primary care: a scoping study

Background

This project examines the organisation and delivery of health improvement activities by and within general practice and the primary health-care team. The project was designed to examine who delivers these interventions, where they are located, what approaches are developed in practices, how individual practices and the primary health-care team organise such public health activities, and how these contribute to health improvement. Our focus was on health promotion and ill-health prevention activities.

Aims

The aim of this scoping exercise was to identify the current extent of knowledge about the health improvement activities in general practice and the wider primary health-care team. The key objectives were to provide an overview of the range and type of health improvement activities, identify gaps in knowledge and areas for further empirical research. Our specific research objectives were to map the range and type of health improvement activity undertaken by general practice staff and the primary health-care team based within general practice; to scope the literature on health improvement in general practice or undertaken by health-care staff based in general practice and identify gaps in the evidence base; to synthesise the literature and identify effective approaches to the delivery and organisation of health improvement interventions in a general practice setting; and to identify the priority areas for research as defined by those working in general practice.

Methods

We undertook a comprehensive search of the literature. We followed a staged selection process involving reviews of titles and abstracts. This resulted in the identification of 1140 papers for data extraction, with 658 of these papers selected for inclusion in the review, of which 347 were included in the evidence synthesis. We also undertook 45 individual and two group interviews with primary health-care staff.

Findings

Many of the research studies reviewed had some details about the type, process or location, or who provided the intervention. Generally, however, little attention is paid in the literature to examining the impact of the organisational context on the way services are delivered or how this affects the effectiveness of health improvement interventions in general practice. We found that the focus of attention is mainly on individual prevention approaches, with practices engaging in both primary and secondary prevention. The range of activities suggests that general practitioners do not take a population approach but focus on individual patients. However, it is clear that many general practitioners see health promotion as an integral part of practice, whether as individual approaches to primary or secondary health improvement or as a practice-based approach to improving the health of their patients. Our key conclusion is that there is currently insufficient good evidence to support many of the health improvement interventions undertaken in general practice and primary care more widely.

Future Research

Future research on health improvement in general practice and by the primary health-care team needs to move beyond clinical research to include delivery systems and be conducted in a primary care setting. More research needs to examine areas where there are chronic disease burdens – cancer, dementia and other disabilities of old age. Reviews should be commissioned that examine the whole prevention pathway for health problems that are managed within primary care drawing together research from general practice, pharmacy, community engagement, etc.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.