Non-participation in population-based disease prevention programs in general practice

BMC Public Health

Joke C Korevaar¹  François G Schellevis¹  Mark MJ Nielen¹  Berber Koopmans¹ 

[1] Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, The Netherlands

关键词: Non-participation;    Screening;    Vaccination;    Prevention;    General practice;   

Others  :  1163005
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-12-856

 received in 2012-04-27, accepted in 2012-09-21,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

The number of people with a chronic disease will strongly increase in the next decades. Therefore, prevention of disease becomes increasingly important. The aim of this systematic review was to identify factors that negatively influence participation in population-based disease prevention programs in General Practice and to establish whether the program type is related to non-participation levels.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review in Pubmed, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO, covering 2000 through July 6th 2012, to identify publications including information about characteristics of non-participants or reasons for non-participation in population-based disease prevention programs in General Practice.

Results

A total of 24 original studies met our criteria, seven of which focused on vaccination, eleven on screening aimed at early detection of disease, and six on screening aimed at identifying high risk of a disease, targeting a variety of diseases and conditions. Lack of personal relevance of the program, younger age, higher social deprivation and former non-participation were related to actual non-participation. No differences were found in non-participation levels or factors related to non-participation between the three program types. The large variation in non-participation levels within the program types may be partly due to differences in recruitment strategies, with more active, personalized strategies resulting in higher participation levels compared to an invitation letter.

Conclusions

There is still much to be gained by tailoring strategies to improve participation in those who are less likely to do so, namely younger individuals, those living in a deprived area and former non-participants. Participation may increase by applying more active recruitment strategies.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Koopmans et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Whiting DR, Guariquarta L, Weil C, Shaw J: IDF Diabetes Atlas: Global estimates of the prevalence of diabetes for 2011 and 2030. Diab Res Clin Pract 2009, 94:311-321.
• [2]Springer F, Philips JL: The IOM Model: A Tool for Prevention Planning and Implementation. Prevention Tactics 2006, 8:1-8.
• [3]Mann E, Prevost AT, Griffin S, Kellar I, Sutton S, Parker M, et al.: Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): trial protocol. BMC Public Health 2009, 9:63. BioMed Central Full Text
• [4]Baeyens JP, Lang PO, Michel JP: Willingness to vaccinate and to be vaccinated in adults. Aging Clin Exp Res 2009, 21:244-249.
• [5]Gregory TA, Wilson C, Duncan A, Turnbull D, Cole SR, Young G: Demographic, social cognitive and social ecological predictors of intention and participation in screening for colorectal cancer. BMC Public Health 2011, 11:38. BioMed Central Full Text
• [6]Jepson R, Clegg A, Forbes C, Lewis R, Sowden A, Kleijnen J: The determinants of screening uptake and interventions for increasing uptake: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2000, 4:i-133.
• [7]Kohlhammer Y, Schnoor M, Schwartz M, Raspe H, Schafer T: Determinants of influenza and pneumococcal vaccination in elderly people: a systematic review. Public Health 2007, 121:742-751.
• [8]von Wagner C, Good A, Whitaker KL, Wardle J: Psychosocial determinants of socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening participation: a conceptual framework. Epidemiol Rev 2011, 33:135-147.
• [9]Marteau TM, Mann E, Prevost AT, Vasconcelos JC, Kellar I, Sanderson S, et al.: Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): randomised trial. BMJ 2010, 340:c2138.
• [10]Campbell R, Mills N, Sanford E, Graham A, Low N, Peters TJ: Does population screening for Chlamydia trachomatis raise anxiety among those tested? Findings from a population based chlamydia screening study. BMC Public Health 2006, 6:106. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Macleod J, Salisbury C, Low N, McCarthy A, Sterne JA, Holloway A, et al.: Coverage and uptake of systematic postal screening for genital Chlamydia trachomatis and prevalence of infection in the United Kingdom general population: cross sectional study. BMJ 2005, 330:940.
• [12]Low N, McCarthy A, Macleod J, Salisbury C, Campbell R, Roberts TE, et al.: Epidemiological, social, diagnostic and economic evaluation of population screening for genital chlamydial infection. Health Technol Assess 2007, 11:1-184.
• [13]Park P, Simmons RK, Prevost AT, Griffin SJ: Screening for type 2 diabetes is feasible, acceptable, but associated with increased short-term anxiety: a randomised controlled trial in British general practice. BMC Public Health 2008, 8:350. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Park P, Simmons RK, Prevost AT, Griffin SJ: A randomized evaluation of loss and gain frames in an invitation to screening for type 2 diabetes: effects on attendance, anxiety and self-rated health. J Health Psychol 2010, 15:196-204.
• [15]Dalsgaard EM, Lauritzen T, Christiansen T, Mai KS, Borch-Johnsen K, Sandbaek A: Socioeconomic factors related to attendance at a Type 2 diabetes screening programme. Diabet Med 2009, 26:518-525.
• [16]Eborall HC, Griffin SJ, Prevost AT, Kinmonth AL, French DP, Sutton S: Psychological impact of screening for type 2 diabetes: controlled trial and comparative study embedded in the ADDITION (Cambridge) randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2007, 335:486.
• [17]Mangtani P, Breeze E, Kovats S, Ng ES, Roberts JA, Fletcher A: Inequalities in influenza vaccine uptake among people aged over 74 years in Britain. Prev Med 2005, 41:545-553.
• [18]Breeze E, Mangtani P, Fletcher AE, Price GM, Kovats S, Roberts J: Trends in influenza vaccination uptake among people aged over 74 years, 1997–2000: survey of 73 general practices in Britain. BMC Fam Pract 2004, 5:8. BioMed Central Full Text
• [19]Christensen JO, Sandbaek A, Lauritzen T, Borch-Johnsen K: Population-based stepwise screening for unrecognised Type 2 diabetes is ineffective in general practice despite reliable algorithms. Diabetologia 2004, 47:1566-1573.
• [20]Sargeant LA, Simmons RK, Barling RS, Butler R, Williams KM, Prevost AT, et al.: Who attends a UK diabetes screening programme? Findings from the ADDITION-Cambridge study. Diabet Med 2010, 27:995-1003.
• [21]Allsup SJ, Gosney MA: Difficulties of recruitment for a randomized controlled trial involving influenza vaccination in healthy older people. Gerontology 2002, 48:170-173.
• [22]Arthur AJ, Matthews RJ, Jagger C, Clarke M, Hipkin A, Bennison DP: Improving uptake of influenza vaccination among older people: A randomised controlled trial. Br J Gen Pract 2002, 52:717-722.
• [23]Byrnes P, Fulton B, Crawford M: An audit of influenza vaccination rates. Aust Fam Physician 2006, 35:551-552.
• [24]Evans MR, Watson PA: Why do older people not get immunised against influenza? A community survey. Vaccine 2003, 21:2421-2427.
• [25]Opstelten W, van Essen GA, Hak E: Determinants of non-compliance with herpes zoster vaccination in the community-dwelling elderly. Vaccine 2009, 27:192-196.
• [26]Vila-Corcoles A, Ochoa-Gondar O, Ester F, Sarra N, Ansa X, Saun N: Evolution of vaccination rates after the implementation of a free systematic pneumococcal vaccination in Catalonian older adults: 4-years follow-up. BMC Public Health 2006, 6:231. BioMed Central Full Text
• [27]Moser K, Patnick J, Beral V: Inequalities in reported use of breast and cervical screening in Great Britain: analysis of cross sectional survey data. BMJ 2009, 338:b2025.
• [28]Tacken MA, Braspenning JC, Hermens RP, Spreeuwenberg PM, van den Hoogen HJ, de Bakker DH, et al.: Uptake of cervical cancer screening in The Netherlands is mainly influenced by women's beliefs about the screening and by the inviting organization. Eur J Public Health 2007, 17:178-185.
• [29]Verhoeven V, Avonts D, Van Royen P, Denekens J: Implementation of a pilot programme for screening for chlamydial infection in general practice. Eur J Gen Pract 2004, 10:157-161.
• [30]Van Der Veen WJ, Van Der MK, Penninx BW: Screening for depression and anxiety: correlates of non-response and cohort attrition in the Netherlands study of depression and anxiety (NESDA). Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2009, 18:229-239.
• [31]Yeung A, Yu SC, Fung F, Vorono S, Fava M: Recognizing and engaging depressed Chinese Americans in treatment in a primary care setting. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2006, 21:819-823.
• [32]Fowler NR, Boustani MA, Frame A, Perkins AJ, Monahan P, Gao S, et al.: Effect of patient perceptions on dementia screening in primary care. J Am Geriatr Soc 2012, 60:1037-1043.
• [33]van de Kerkhof RM, Godefrooij MB, Wouda PJ, Vening RA, Dinant GJ, Spigt MG: Cardiometabolic risk factors detected with a preventative screening programme]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2010, 154:A1860.
• [34]Lambert AM, Burden AC, Chambers J, Marshall T: Cardiovascular screening for men at high risk in Heart of Birmingham Teaching Primary Care Trust: the 'Deadly Trio' programme. J Public Health (Oxf) 2012, 34:73-82.
• [35]Nielen M, Van Der Meer V, Assendelft P, Schellevis F: An evidence-based cardiometabolic health check in general practice. Huisarts Wet 2011, 54:414-419.
• [36]Vermunt PW, Milder IE, Wielaard F, van Oers JA, Westert GP: An active strategy to identify individuals eligible for type 2 diabetes prevention by lifestyle intervention in Dutch primary care: the APHRODITE study. Fam Pract 2010, 27:312-319.
• [37]Barr RJ, Stewart A, Torgerson DJ, Seymour DG, Reid DM: Screening elderly women for risk of future fractures - Participation rates and impact on incidence of falls and fractures. Calcif Tissue Int 2005, 76:243-248.
• [38]Zanjani F, Zubritsky C, Mullahy M, Oslin D: Predictors of adherence within an intervention research study of the at-risk older drinker: PRISM-E. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 2006, 19:231-238.
• [39]Baker D, Middleton E: Cervical screening and health inequality in England in the 1990s. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003, 57:417-423.
• [40]von Wagner C, Good A, Wright D, Rachet B, Obichere A, Bloom S, et al.: Inequalities in colorectal cancer screening participation in the first round of the national screening programme in England. Br J Cancer 2009, 101:S60-S63.
• [41]Fylan F: Screening for cervical cancer: a review of women's attitudes, knowledge, and behaviour. Br J Gen Pract 1998, 48:1509-1514.
• [42]Gholizadeh L, Davidson P, Salamonson Y, Worrall-Carter L: Theoretical considerations in reducing risk for cardiovascular disease: implications for nursing practice. J Clin Nurs 2010, 19:2137-2145.
• [43]Van Steenkiste B, der WT V, Timmermans D, Vaes J, Stoffers J, Grol R: Patients' ideas, fears and expectations of their coronary risk: barriers for primary prevention. Patient Educ Couns 2004, 55:301-307.
• [44]Jacobson VJ, Szilagyi P: Patient reminder and patient recall systems to improve immunization rates. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005., CD003941(Issue 3)
• [45]Barrett B, McKenna P: Communicating benefits and risks of screening for prostate, colon, and breast cancer. Fam Med 2011, 43:248-253.
• [46]Kellar I, Mann E, Kinmonth AL, Prevost AT, Sutton S, Marteau TM: Can informed choice invitations lead to inequities in intentions to make lifestyle changes among participants in a primary care diabetes screening programme? Evidence from a randomized trial. Public Health 2011, 125:645-652.