scholarly journals Influences on NHS Health Check behaviours: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lou Atkins ◽  
Chryssa Stefanidou ◽  
Tim Chadborn ◽  
Katherine Thompson ◽  
Susan Michie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Behaviour Change ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Health Check ◽  
Behaviour Change Techniques ◽  
Behavioural Science ◽  
Health Checks ◽  
Intervention Content ◽  
Nhs Health Checks ◽  
Nhs Health Check

Abstract Background National Health Service Health Checks were introduced in 2009 to reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) risks and events. Since then, national evaluations have highlighted the need to maximise the programme’s impact by improving coverage and outputs. To address these challenges it is important to understand the extent to which positive behaviours are influenced across the NHS Health Check pathway and encourage the promotion or minimisation of behavioural facilitators and barriers respectively. This study applied behavioural science frameworks to: i) identify behaviours and actors relevant to uptake, delivery and follow up of NHS Health Checks and influences on these behaviours and; ii) signpost to example intervention content. Methods A systematic review of studies reporting behaviours related to NHS Health Check-related behaviours of patients, health care professionals (HCPs) and commissioners. Influences on behaviours were coded using theory-based models: COM-B and Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Potential intervention types and behaviour change techniques (BCTs) were suggested to target key influences. Results We identified 37 studies reporting nine behaviours and influences for eight of these. The most frequently identified influences were physical opportunity including HCPs having space and time to deliver NHS Health Checks and patients having money to adhere to recommendations to change diet and physical activity. Other key influences were motivational, such as beliefs about consequences about the value of NHS Health Checks and behaviour change, and social, such as influences of others on behaviour change. The following techniques are suggested for websites or smartphone apps: Adding objects to the environment, e.g. provide HCPs with electronic schedules to guide timely delivery of Health Checks to target physical opportunity, Social support (unspecified), e.g. include text suggesting patients to ask a colleague to agree in advance to join them in taking the ‘healthy option’ lunch at work; Information about health consequences, e.g. quotes and/or videos from patients talking about the health benefits of changes they have made.Conclusions Through the application of behavioural science we identified key behaviours and their influences which informed recommendations for intervention content. To ascertain the extent to which this reflects existing interventions we recommend a review of relevant evidence.

scholarly journals Influences on NHS Health Check behaviours: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lou Atkins ◽  
Chryssa Stefanidou ◽  
Tim Chadborn ◽  
Katherine Thompson ◽  
Susan Michie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Behaviour Change ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Health Check ◽  
Behaviour Change Techniques ◽  
Behavioural Science ◽  
Health Checks ◽  
Intervention Content ◽  
Nhs Health Checks ◽  
Nhs Health Check

Abstract Background National Health Service Health Checks were introduced in 2009 to reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) risks and events. Since then, national evaluations have highlighted the need to maximise the programme’s impact by improving coverage and outputs. To address these challenges it is important to understand the extent to which positive behaviours are influenced across the NHS Health Check pathway and encourage the promotion or minimisation of behavioural facilitators and barriers respectively. This study applied behavioural science frameworks to: i) identify behaviours and actors relevant to uptake, delivery and follow up of NHS Health Checks and influences on these behaviours and; ii) signpost to example intervention content. Methods A systematic review of studies reporting behaviours related to NHS Health Check-related behaviours of patients, health care professionals (HCPs) and commissioners. Influences on behaviours were coded using theory-based models: COM-B and Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Potential intervention types and behaviour change techniques (BCTs) were suggested to target key influences. Results We identified 37 studies reporting nine behaviours and influences for eight of these. The most frequently identified influences were physical opportunity including HCPs having space and time to deliver NHS Health Checks and patients having money to adhere to recommendations to change diet and physical activity. Other key influences were motivational, such as beliefs about consequences about the value of NHS Health Checks and behaviour change, and social, such as influences of others on behaviour change. The following techniques are suggested for websites or smartphone apps: Adding objects to the environment, e.g. provide HCPs with electronic schedules to guide timely delivery of Health Checks to target physical opportunity, Social support (unspecified), e.g. include text suggesting patients to ask a colleague to agree in advance to join them in taking the ‘healthy option’ lunch at work; Information about health consequences, e.g. quotes and/or videos from patients talking about the health benefits of changes they have made.Conclusions Through the application of behavioural science we identified key behaviours and their influences which informed recommendations for intervention content. To ascertain the extent to which this reflects existing interventions we recommend a review of relevant evidence.

scholarly journals Influences on NHS Health Check behaviours: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lou Atkins ◽  
Chryssa Stefanidou ◽  
Tim Chadborn ◽  
Katherine Thompson ◽  
Susan Michie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Behaviour Change ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Health Check ◽  
Behaviour Change Techniques ◽  
Behavioural Science ◽  
Health Checks ◽  
Intervention Content ◽  
Nhs Health Checks ◽  
Nhs Health Check

Abstract Background National Health Service Health Checks were introduced in 2009 to reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) risks and events. Since then, national evaluations have highlighted the need to maximise the programme’s impact by improving coverage and outputs. To address these challenges it is important to understand the extent to which positive behaviours are influenced across the NHS Health Check pathway and encourage the promotion or minimisation of behavioural facilitators and barriers respectively. This study applied behavioural science frameworks to: i) identify behaviours and actors relevant to uptake, delivery and follow up of NHS Health Checks and influences on these behaviours and; ii) signpost to example intervention content. Methods A systematic review of studies reporting behaviours related to NHS Health Check-related behaviours of patients, health care professionals (HCPs) and commissioners. Influences on behaviours were coded using theory-based models: COM-B and Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Potential intervention types and behaviour change techniques (BCTs) were suggested to target key influences. Results We identified 37 studies reporting nine behaviours and influences for eight of these. The most frequently identified influences were physical opportunity including HCPs having space and time to deliver NHS Health Checks and patients having money to adhere to recommendations to change diet and physical activity. Other key influences were motivational, such as beliefs about consequences about the value of NHS Health Checks and behaviour change, and social, such as influences of others on behaviour change. The following techniques are suggested for websites or smartphone apps: Adding objects to the environment, e.g. provide HCPs with electronic schedules to guide timely delivery of Health Checks to target physical opportunity, Social support (unspecified), e.g. include text suggesting patients to ask a colleague to agree in advance to join them in taking the ‘healthy option’ lunch at work; Information about health consequences, e.g. quotes and/or videos from patients talking about the health benefits of changes they have made. Conclusions Through the application of behavioural science we identified key behaviours and their influences which informed recommendations for intervention content. To ascertain the extent to which this reflects existing interventions we recommend a review of relevant evidence.

scholarly journals Influences on NHS Health Check behaviours: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lou Atkins ◽  
Chryssa Stefanidou ◽  
Tim Chadborn ◽  
Katherine Thompson ◽  
Susan Michie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Behaviour Change ◽  
National Health ◽  
Health Check ◽  
Behavioural Science ◽  
Health Checks ◽  
Digital Intervention ◽  
Intervention Content ◽  
Nhs Health Checks ◽  
Nhs Health Check

Abstract Background National Health Checks were introduced in the English National Health Service (NHS) in 2009 to reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) risks and events. Following Public Health England’s (PHE’s) 2017 Digital review, NHS Health Checks were identified as a Digital Exemplar for PHE forming part of the Predictive Prevention programme, setting out the government’s vision for putting prevention at the heart of the nation’s health. This study applied behavioural science frameworks to: i) identify behaviours and actors relevant to uptake, delivery and follow up of NHS Health Checks and influences on these behaviours and; ii) signpost to example intervention content, with a focus on digital intervention development. Methods A systematic review of studies reporting NHS Health Check-related behaviours of patients, health care professionals (HCPs) and commissioners. Influences on behaviours were coded using theory-based models: COM-B and Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Potential intervention types and behaviour change techniques (BCTs) were suggested to target key influences. Results We identified 37 studies reporting nine behaviours and influences for eight of these. The most frequently identified influences were physical opportunity including HCPs having space and time to deliver NHS Health Checks and patients having money to adhere to recommendations to change diet and physical activity. Other key influences were motivational, such as beliefs about consequences about the value of NHS Health Checks and behaviour change, and social, such as influences of others on behaviour change. The following techniques are suggested for websites or smartphone apps: Adding objects to the environment, e.g. provide HCPs with electronic schedules to guide timely delivery of Health Checks to target physical opportunity, Social support (unspecified) , e.g. include text suggesting patients to ask a colleague to agree in advance to join them in taking the ‘healthy option’ lunch at work; Information about health consequences , e.g. quotes and/or videos from patients talking about the health benefits of changes they have made. Conclusions Through the application of behavioural science we identified key behaviours and their influences which informed recommendations for digital intervention content. To ascertain the extent to which this reflects existing interventions we recommend a review of relevant evidence.

scholarly journals Influences on NHS Health Check behaviours: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lou Atkins ◽  
Chryssa Stefanidou ◽  
Tim Chadborn ◽  
Katherine Thompson ◽  
Susan Michie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Behaviour Change ◽  
National Health ◽  
Health Check ◽  
Behavioural Science ◽  
Health Checks ◽  
Digital Intervention ◽  
Intervention Content ◽  
Nhs Health Checks ◽  
Nhs Health Check

Abstract Background National Health Checks were introduced in the English National Health Service (NHS) in 2009 to reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) risks and events. Following Public Health England’s (PHE’s) 2017 Digital review, NHS Health Checks were identified as a Digital Exemplar for PHE forming part of the Predictive Prevention programme, setting out the government’s vision for putting prevention at the heart of the nation’s health. This study applied behavioural science frameworks to: i) identify behaviours and actors relevant to uptake, delivery and follow up of NHS Health Checks and influences on these behaviours and; ii) signpost to example intervention content, with a focus on digital intervention development. Methods A systematic review of studies reporting NHS Health Check-related behaviours of patients, health care professionals (HCPs) and commissioners. Influences on behaviours were coded using theory-based models: COM-B and Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Potential intervention types and behaviour change techniques (BCTs) were suggested to target key influences. Results We identified 37 studies reporting nine behaviours and influences for eight of these. The most frequently identified influences were physical opportunity including HCPs having space and time to deliver NHS Health Checks and patients having money to adhere to recommendations to change diet and physical activity. Other key influences were motivational, such as beliefs about consequences about the value of NHS Health Checks and behaviour change, and social, such as influences of others on behaviour change. The following techniques are suggested for websites or smartphone apps: Adding objects to the environment, e.g. provide HCPs with electronic schedules to guide timely delivery of Health Checks to target physical opportunity, Social support (unspecified) , e.g. include text suggesting patients to ask a colleague to agree in advance to join them in taking the ‘healthy option’ lunch at work; Information about health consequences , e.g. quotes and/or videos from patients talking about the health benefits of changes they have made. Conclusions Through the application of behavioural science we identified key behaviours and their influences which informed recommendations for digital intervention content. To ascertain the extent to which this reflects existing interventions we recommend a review of relevant evidence.

scholarly journals Patient experience of NHS health checks: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. e017169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juliet A Usher-Smith ◽  
Emma Harte ◽  
Calum MacLure ◽  
Adam Martin ◽  
Catherine L Saunders ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Behaviour Change ◽  
Lifestyle Changes ◽  
Qualitative Studies ◽  
Health Check ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Health Checks ◽  
Nhs Health Checks ◽  
Nhs Health Check

ObjectiveTo review the experiences of patients attending NHS Health Checks in England.DesignA systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies with a thematic synthesis of qualitative studies.Data sourcesAn 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 criteriaPrimary research reporting experiences of patients who have attended NHS Health Checks.Results20 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.ConclusionsWhile 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.

scholarly journals Reasons why people do not attend NHS Health Checks: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis

2017 ◽  
Vol 68 (666) ◽  
pp. e28-e35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Harte ◽  
Calum MacLure ◽  
Adam Martin ◽  
Catherine L Saunders ◽  
Catherine Meads ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Management ◽  
Health Check ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Qualitative Synthesis ◽  
Health Checks ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Nhs Health Checks ◽  
Nhs Health Check

BackgroundThe 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.AimTo review why people do not attend NHS Health Checks.Design and settingA systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies.MethodAn 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.ResultsNine 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.ConclusionThe 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.

scholarly journals Fidelity of the delivery of NHS Health Checks in general practice: an observational study

BJGP Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. bjgpopen20X101077
Author(s):  
Ben Paxton ◽  
Katie Mills ◽  
Juliet A Usher-Smith
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Behaviour Change ◽  
Health Check ◽  
Health Checks ◽  
Dementia Risk ◽  
Fidelity Assessment ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Nhs Health Checks ◽  
Nhs Health Check

BackgroundThe NHS Health Check programme aims to reduce the risk of common preventable diseases by providing risk information and behaviour change advice. Failure to deliver the consultation appropriately could undermine its efficacy. To date, to the authors’ knowledge, there are no published data on the fidelity of delivery of NHS Health Checks.AimTo assess the fidelity of delivery of NHS Health Checks in general practice.Design & settingFidelity assessment of video and audio recordings of NHS Health Check consultations conducted in four GP practices across the East of England.MethodA secondary analysis of 38 NHS Health Check consultations, which were video or audio recorded as part of a pilot study of introducing discussions of cancer risk into NHS Health Checks. Using a checklist based on the NHS Health Check Best Practice Guidance, fidelity of delivery was assessed as the proportion of key elements completed during the consultations.ResultsThe mean number of elements of the NHS Health Check completed across all consultations was 14.5/18 (80.6%), with a range of 10 to 17 (55.6% to 94.4%). The mean fidelity for risk assessment, risk communication, and risk management sections was 8.7/10 (87.0%), 4.1/5 (82.0%), and 1.7/3 (56.7%), respectively. Clinically appropriate lifestyle advice was given in 34/38 consultations. Elements with the lowest fidelity were ethnicity assessment (n = 12/38; 31.6%), family history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) assessment (n = 25/38; 65.8%), AUDIT-C communication (n = 13/38; 34.2%), and dementia risk management (n = 6/38; 15.8%).ConclusionAlthough fidelity of delivery was high overall, important elements of the NHS Health Check were being regularly omitted. Opportunities for behaviour change, particularly relating to alcohol consumption and dementia risk management, may be being missed.

scholarly journals Incorporating a brief intervention for personalised cancer risk assessment to promote behaviour change into primary care: a multi-methods pilot study

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Katie Mills ◽  
Ben Paxton ◽  
Fiona M. Walter ◽  
Simon J. Griffin ◽  
Stephen Sutton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Chronic Disease ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Behaviour Change ◽  
Brief Intervention ◽  
Health Check ◽  
Health Checks ◽  
Nhs Health Checks ◽  
Nhs Health Check

Abstract Background Approximately 40% of cancers could be prevented if people lived healthier lifestyles. We have developed a theory-based brief intervention to share personalised cancer risk information and promote behaviour change within primary care. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of incorporating this intervention into primary care consultations. Method Patients eligible for an NHS Health Check or annual chronic disease review at five general practices were invited to participate in a non-randomised pilot study. In addition to the NHS Health Check or chronic disease review, those receiving the intervention were provided with their estimated risk of developing the most common preventable cancers alongside tailored behaviour change advice. Patients completed online questionnaires at baseline, immediately post-consultation and at 3-month follow-up. Consultations were audio/video recorded. Patients (n = 12) and healthcare professionals (HCPs) (n = 7) participated in post-intervention qualitative interviews that were analysed using thematic analysis. Results 62 patients took part. Thirty-four attended for an NHS Health Check plus the intervention; 7 for a standard NHS Health Check; 16 for a chronic disease review plus the intervention; and 5 for a standard chronic disease review. The mean time for delivery of the intervention was 9.6 min (SD 3) within NHS Health Checks and 9 min (SD 4) within chronic disease reviews. Fidelity of delivery of the intervention was high. Data from the questionnaires demonstrates potential improvements in health-related behaviours following the intervention. Patients receiving the intervention found the cancer risk information and lifestyle advice understandable, useful and motivating. HCPs felt that the intervention fitted well within NHS Health Checks and facilitated conversations around behaviour change. Integrating the intervention within chronic disease reviews was more challenging. Conclusions Incorporating a risk-based intervention to promote behaviour change for cancer prevention into primary care consultations is feasible and acceptable to both patients and HCPs. A randomised trial is now needed to assess the effect on health behaviours. When designing that trial, and other prevention activities within primary care, it is necessary to consider challenges around patient recruitment, the HCP contact time needed for delivery of interventions, and how best to integrate discussions about disease risk within routine care.

scholarly journals NHS Health Checks for people with mental ill-health 2013–2017: an observational study

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Garriga ◽  
J. Robson ◽  
C. Coupland ◽  
J. Hippisley-Cox
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Health Check ◽  
Health Checks ◽  
Hazard Ratios ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
Nhs Health Checks ◽  
Nhs Health Check

Abstract Aims People living with serious mental ill-health experience adverse cardiovascular outcomes causing some of the greatest health inequality gaps in England, UK. We describe uptake of the NHS Health Check programme in people with mental ill-health, and rates of new diagnoses and management of cardiovascular risk factors in those who attend NHS Health Checks in comparison to those people without mental ill-health. Methods We used a large nationally representative database of people registered with general practitioners in England (QResearch). Between 2013 and 2017, we analysed attendance at NHS Health Checks and outcomes in the succeeding 12 months, in people with serious mental illness (SMI) including psychoses and in people prescribed long-term antidepressant medications (LTAD), with comparison to attendees who did not have these conditions. Hazard ratios (HR) were used to describe the association between outcomes and SMI and LTAD adjusting for sociodemographic variables. Results In those eligible for the NHS Health Check programme, we found a higher percentage of people with SMI attended an NHS Health Check (65 490, 19.8%) than those without SMI (524 728, 16.6%); adjusted HR 1.05 [95% confidence interval 1.02–1.08]. We also observed a higher percentage of attendance in people on LTAD (46 437, 20.1%) compared to people who were not prescribed LTAD (543 781, 16.7%); adjusted HR 1.10 (1.08–1.13). People with SMI were more likely to be identified with chronic kidney disease (CKD, HR 1.23, 1.12–1.34) and type 2 diabetes (HR 1.14, 1.03–1.25) within the 12 months following their NHS Health Check compared with those without SMI. People on LTAD were more likely to be identified with CKD (HR 1.55, 1.42–1.70) and type 2 diabetes (HR 1.45, 1.31–1.60) and also hypertension, cardiovascular disease, non-diabetic hyperglycaemia, familial hypercholesterolemia and dementia within the 12 months following their NHS Health Check. Statins were more likely to be prescribed to NHS Health Check attendees with SMI and those on LTAD than those without these conditions; HR 1.31 (1.25–1.38) and 1.91 (1.82–2.01), respectively. Antihypertensives were more likely to be prescribed to those on LTAD; HR 1.21 (1.14–1.29). Conclusions We found evidence that people with SMI or on LTAD treatment were 5–10% more likely to access NHS Health Checks than people without these conditions. People with SMI or on LTAD treatment who attended NHS Health Checks had higher rates of diagnosis of CKD, type 2 diabetes and some other relevant co-morbidities and increased treatment with statins and also anti-hypertensive medication in people on LTAD. This is likely to contribute to equitable reduction in adverse cardiovascular events for people with mental ill-health.

scholarly journals What Are the Effective Behaviour Change Techniques Used to Improve General Health Check Attendance: A Systematic Review Protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wing Yan Lau ◽  
Jinxiao Lian ◽  
Maurice Yap
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Analysis ◽  
Behaviour Change ◽  
General Health ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Health Check ◽  
Behaviour Change Techniques ◽  
Behaviour Change Wheel

Abstract BackgroundThe general health check serves as an important preventive service to manage chronic illness. While previous studies have identified interventions used to improve utilization, few have provided evidence on the techniques used within an intervention. This has limited the scope of evaluating the intervention’s effectiveness. This systematic review aims to use the Behaviour Change Wheel to identify the intervention options and identify the specific behaviour change techniques implemented. The result is expected to provide comprehensive evidence-based information to inform future intervention development. MethodsA search strategy has been developed using the relevant keywords. Literature searches on four electronic databases have proceeded on 18 August 2021. No data analysis has been carried out yet. The search strategy will be updated towards the end to ensure all relevant literature is included in this review. The retrieved studies will be screened for eligibility following the PRISMA guideline. The quality of the included articles will be appraised using an appropriate quality assessment tool. For data analysis, intervention functions will be identified using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW). A content analysis will be followed, by using the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy (BCTTv1) to identify the techniques implemented in each intervention. The result will be presented in a narrative synthesis, summarizing the key techniques used, their frequency of identification and possible patterns of techniques implemented across different studies. Where deemed appropriate, a meta-analysis will be performed.DiscussionThis systematic review may provide evidence for explaining intervention effectiveness in more detail by providing a detailed comparison of intervention components. The results are expected to aid future intervention design to improve the general health check attendance and promote universal health coverage.Systematic review registrationThis protocol is registered on PROSPERO (ref: CRD42021221041).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document