Does recruiting patients to diabetes prevention programmes via primary care reinforce existing inequalities in care provision between general practices? A retrospective observational study.

Background Primary care plays a crucial role in identifying patients' needs and referring at-risk individuals to preventive services. However, well-established variations in care delivery may be replicated in this prevention activity. Objective To examine whether recruiting patients to the English NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme via primary care reinforces existing inequalities in care provision between practices, in terms of clinical quality, accessibility and resources. Methods We generated annual practice-level counts of referrals across the first 4 years of the programme (June 2016 to March 2020). These were linked to 15 indicators of practice clinical quality, access and resources measured during 2018/19. We used random effects Poisson regressions to examine associations between referrals and these indicators, controlling for practice and population characteristics, for 6871 practices in England. Results On average, practices made 3.72 referrals per 1000 population annually and rates varied substantially between practices. Referral rates were positively associated with the quality of clinical care provided. A 1 SD higher level of achievement on Quality and Outcomes Framework diabetes indicators was associated with an 11% (95% CI: 8% to 14%) higher referral rate. This positive association was consistent across all five clinical quality indicators. There was no association between referral rates and accessibility, overall payments or staffing. Associations between referrals and receiving different supplementary payments over the core contract were mixed, with 8%-11% lower referral rates for some payments but not for others. Conclusion Recruiting patients to diabetes prevention programmes via primary care reinforces existing inequalities between general practices in the clinical quality of care they provide. This leaves patients registered with practices providing lower quality clinical care even more disadvantaged. Providing additional support to lower quality practices or using alternative recruitment methods may be necessary to avoid differential engagement in prevention programmes from widening these variations and potential health inequalities further. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]