Search

Background: Risk assessment is central to primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), but there remains a need to better understand the use of evidence-based interventions in practice. This study examines: (i) the policies and guidelines for risk assessment in Europe, (ii) the use of risk assessment tools in clinical practice and (iii) the barriers to, and facilitators of, risk assessment., Methods: Data were collected from academics, clinicians and policymakers in an online questionnaire targeted at experts from all European Union member states, and in 8 in-depth country case studies that were developed from a targeted literature review and 36 interviews., Results: The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) produces European guidelines for CVD risk assessment and recommends the Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation tool, which is the most widely used risk assessment tool in Europe. The use of risk assessment tools is variable. Lack of time and resources are important barriers. Integrating risk assessment tools into clinical systems and providing financial incentives to carry out risk assessments could increase implementation. Novel biomarkers would need to be supported by evidence of their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to be introduced in clinical practice. These findings were consistent across Europe., Conclusions: Efforts to improve the assessment of CVD risk in clinical practice should be carried out by or in collaboration with, the ESC. Increasing the use of existing risk assessment tools is likely to offer greater gains in primary prevention than the development of novel biomarkers.

Background: Since 2009, all eligible persons in England have been entitled to an NHS Health Check. Uncertainty remains about who attends, and the health-related impacts., Aim: To review quantitative evidence on coverage (the proportion of eligible individuals who attend), uptake (proportion of invitees who attend), and impact of NHS Health Checks., Design and Setting: A systematic review and quantitative data synthesis. Included were studies or data reporting coverage or uptake and studies reporting any health-related impact that used an appropriate comparison group or before- and-after study design., Method: Eleven databases and additional internet sources were searched to November 2016., Results: Twenty-six observational studies and one additional dataset were included. Since 2013, 45.6% of eligible individuals have received a health check. Coverage is higher among older people, those with a family history of coronary heart disease, those living in the most deprived areas, and some ethnic minority groups. Just under half (48.2%) of those invited have taken up the invitation. Data on uptake and impact (especially regarding health-related behaviours) are limited. Uptake is higher in older people and females, but lower in those living in the most deprived areas. Attendance is associated with small increases in disease detection, decreases in modelled cardiovascular disease risk, and increased statin and antihypertensive prescribing., Conclusion: Published attendance, uptake, and prescribing rates are all lower than originally anticipated, and data on impact are limited, with very few studies reporting the effect of attendance on health-related behaviours. High-quality studies comparing matched attendees and non-attendees and health economic analyses are required., (© British Journal of General Practice 2018.)

Background: The NHS Health Check programme is a prevention initiative offering cardiovascular risk assessment and management advice to adults aged 40-74 years across England. Its effectiveness depends on uptake. When it was introduced in 2009, it was anticipated that all those eligible would be invited over a 5-year cycle and 75% of those invited would attend. So far in the current cycle from 2013 to 2018, 33.8% of those eligible have attended, which is equal to 48.5% of those invited to attend. Understanding the reasons why some people do not attend is important to maximise the impact of the programmes., Aim: To review why people do not attend NHS Health Checks., Design and Setting: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies., Method: An electronic literature search was carried out of MEDLINE, Embase, Health Management Information Consortium, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, PsycINFO, Web of Science, OpenGrey, the Cochrane Library, NHS Evidence, Google Scholar, Google, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the ISRCTN registry from 1 January 1996 to 9 November 2016, and the reference lists of all included papers were also screened manually. Inclusion criteria were primary research studies that reported the views of people who were eligible for but had not attended an NHS Health Check., Results: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Reasons for not attending included lack of awareness or knowledge, misunderstanding the purpose of the NHS Health Check, aversion to preventive medicine, time constraints, difficulties with access to general practices, and doubts regarding pharmacies as appropriate settings., Conclusion: The findings particularly highlight the need for improved communication and publicity around the purpose of the NHS Health Check programme and the personal health benefits of risk factor detection., (© British Journal of General Practice 2018.)

Objective: To synthesise data concerning the views of commissioners, managers and healthcare professionals towards the National Health Service (NHS) Health Check programme in general and the challenges faced when implementing it in practice., Design: A systematic review of surveys and interview studies with a descriptive analysis of quantitative data and thematic synthesis of qualitative data., Data Sources: An electronic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Health Management Information Consortium, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, PsycInfo, Web of Science, OpenGrey, the Cochrane Library, NHS Evidence, Google Scholar, Google, ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry from 1 January 1996 to 9 November 2016 with no language restriction and manual screening of reference lists of all included papers., Inclusion Criteria: Primary research reporting views of commissioners, managers or healthcare professionals on the NHS Health Check programme and its implementation in practice., Results: Of 18 524 citations, 15 articles met the inclusion criteria. There was evidence from both quantitative and qualitative studies that some commissioners and general practice (GP) healthcare professionals were enthusiastic about the programme, whereas others raised concerns around inequality of uptake, the evidence base and cost-effectiveness. In contrast, those working in pharmacies were all positive about programme benefits, citing opportunities for their business and staff. The main challenges to implementation were: difficulties with information technology and computer software, resistance to the programme from some GPs, the impact on workload and staffing, funding and training needs. Inadequate privacy was also a challenge in pharmacy and community settings, along with difficulty recruiting people eligible for Health Checks and poor public access to some venues., Conclusions: The success of the NHS Health Check Programme relies on engagement by those responsible for its commissioning, management and delivery. Recognising and addressing the challenges identified in this review, in particular the concerns of GPs, are important for the future of the programme., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objective: To review the experiences of patients attending NHS Health Checks in England., Design: A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies with a thematic synthesis of qualitative studies., Data Sources: An electronic literature search of Medline, Embase, Health Management Information Consortium, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, PsycInfo, Web of Science, OpenGrey, the Cochrane Library, National Health Service (NHS) Evidence, Google Scholar, Google, Clinical Trials.gov and the ISRCTN registry to 09/11/16 with no language restriction and manual screening of reference lists of all included papers., Inclusion Criteria: Primary research reporting experiences of patients who have attended NHS Health Checks., Results: 20 studies met the inclusion criteria, 9 reporting quantitative data and 15 qualitative data. There were consistently high levels of reported satisfaction in surveys, with over 80% feeling that they had benefited from an NHS Health Check. Data from qualitative studies showed that the NHS Health Check had been perceived to act as a wake-up call for many who reported having gone on to make substantial lifestyle changes which they attributed to the NHS Health Check. However, some had been left with a feeling of unmet expectations, were confused about or unable to remember their risk scores, found the lifestyle advice too simplistic and non-personalised or were confused about follow-up., Conclusions: While participants were generally very supportive of the NHS Health Check programme and examples of behaviour change were reported, there are a number of areas where improvements could be made. These include greater clarity around the aims of the programme within the promotional material, more proactive support for lifestyle change and greater appreciation of the challenges of communicating risk and the limitations of relying on the risk score alone as a trigger for facilitating behaviour change., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) funds and supports world-leading clinical and applied health and social care research, as well as research infrastructure in the NHS. Providing £1 billion of funding each year, NIHR aims to: drive the faster translation of new treatments, technologies and diagnostics to improve outcomes for health and care services; promote the wealth of the nation, including via inward investment from the health research community; pull basic science discoveries through into tangible benefits for patients and the public; and provide research evidence to support more effective and cost-effective NHS delivery. To mark its tenth anniversary, the Department of Health commissioned the Policy Research in Science and Medicine unit to consider the question: "What are the ways in which NIHR has benefited the health research landscape in the past ten years?" This study identifies and celebrates 100 examples of positive change resulting from NIHR's support of research. A synthesis of 100 case studies is provided, which highlights the benefits and wider impacts of research, capacity building, and other activities undertaken with NIHR's support since its creation in 2006. The study concludes with a reflection of how the NIHR has transformed R&D in and for the NHS and wider health service, and the people they serve. The study draws together---for the first time---examples of the breadth of NIHR's impacts in a single resource. It will be of interest to healthcare professionals involved in research, academics working in health and social care, and members of the public wishing to understand the value of research in the NHS and the wider health and care system.

Objectives: To identify research support strategies likely to be effective for strengthening the UK's dementia research landscape and ensuring a sustainable and competitive workforce., Design: Interviews and qualitative analysis; systematic internet search to track the careers of 1500 holders of UK doctoral degrees in dementia, awarded during 1970-2013, to examine retention in this research field and provide a proxy profile of the research workforce., Setting and Participants: 40 interviewees based in the UK, whose primary role is or has been in dementia research (34 individuals), health or social care (3) or research funding (3). Interviewees represented diverse fields, career stages and sectors., Results: While the UK has diverse strengths in dementia research, needs persist for multidisciplinary collaboration, investment in care-related research, supporting research-active clinicians and translation of research findings. There is also a need to better support junior and midlevel career opportunities to ensure a sustainable research pipeline and future leadership. From a sample of 1500 UK doctorate holders who completed a dementia-related thesis in 1970-2013, we identified current positions for 829 (55%). 651 (43% of 1500) could be traced and identified as still active in research (any field) and 315 (21%) as active in dementia research. Among recent doctoral graduates, nearly 70% left dementia research within 4-6 years of graduation., Conclusions: A dementia research workforce blueprint should consider support for individuals, institutions and networks. A mix of policy interventions are needed, aiming to attract and retain researchers; tackle bottlenecks in career pathways, particularly at early and midcareer stages (eg, scaling-up fellowship opportunities, rising star programmes, bridge-funding, flexible clinical fellowships, leadership training); and encourage research networks (eg, doctoral training centres, succession and sustainability planning). Interventions should also address the need for coordinated investment to improve multidisciplinary collaboration; balanced research portfolios across prevention, treatment and care; and learning from evaluation., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

The Department of Health's Innovation, Health and Wealth (IHW) strategy aimed to introduce a more strategic approach to the spread of innovation across the NHS. This study represents the first phase of a three-year evaluation and aims to map progress towards the IHW strategy and its component actions. This evaluation used a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods: document review, key informant interviews and stakeholder survey. This study also forms the basis for selecting case studies for phase two of the evaluation. Our findings from the interviews and survey suggest broad stakeholder support for the overarching ambitions of the IHW strategy. However, we found variable progress towards the overarching objectives of the eight IHW themes and an ambiguous relationship between many of the themes' objectives and their actions. It was difficult to assess progress on IHW's actions as commitment to the actions, implementation guidance and expected outcomes of the actions were not clearly articulated. The Academic Health Science Networks (AHSNs) and the Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI) were reported to be working well, which may be attributed to their clear structures of accountability and earmarked budgets. However, survey respondents and interviewees raised concerns that budgetary pressures may limit the impact of both AHSNs and the SBRI. The main challenges identified for ongoing action were the resources available for their implementation (e.g. Medtech Briefings), lack of awareness of the initiative (e.g. the NICE Implementation Collaborative) and the design of the actions (e.g. the Innovation Scorecard, web portal and High Impact Innovations).

The International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) is one of a number of Product Development Partnerships created to bridge the gap between scientific and technological potential and the needs of low income populations in low and middle income countries. Specifically IAVI is focused on creating a preventative vaccine for HIV/AIDS. Whilst the remit of IAVI is to create new science, technology and products, its work necessarily involves a wide range of stakeholders and different constituencies in industrially developing and developed countries. Its capacity building activities relate to strengthening the ability to conduct clinical trials and are broad based, spanning scientific and technological capacity through to organisational, advocacy and broader development capabilities. The aim of this study was to deepen IAVI's understanding of how it contributes to capacity building activities in East Africa (Uganda, Kenya and Rwanda), spanning scientific and technological capacity through to organisational, advocacy and broader development capabilities. IAVI's mission to develop an HIV vaccine has become increasingly connected to wider health systems strengthening, through its clinical research activities in East Africa. Since it began its operations in the region, IAVI has made a significant contribution to training interventions to support scientific excellence and good clinical practice and invested in infrastructure and laboratories at Clinical Research Centres in East Africa. Although clear challenges still exist with ensuring sustained investment, accessing marginalized populations and demonstrating progress in capacity building, the experiences of IAVI to date suggest that substantial progress is being made towards wider health systems strengthening in the region.