Background: The NHS Health Check is a national cardiovascular disease prevention programme. There is a lack of evidence on how health checks are conducted, how cardiovascular disease risk is communicated to foster risk-reducing intentions or behaviour, and the impact on communication of using different cardiovascular disease risk calculators.
Objectives: RIsk COmmunication in Health Check (RICO) study aimed to explore practitioner and patient understanding of cardiovascular disease risk, the associated advice or treatment offered by the practitioner, and the response of the patients in health checks supported by either the QRISK®2 or the JBS3 lifetime risk calculator.
Design: This was a qualitative study with quantitative process evaluation.
Setting: Twelve general practices in the West Midlands of England, stratified on deprivation of the local area (bottom 50% vs. top 50%), and with matched pairs randomly allocated to use QRISK2 or JBS3 during health checks.
Participants: A total of 173 patients eligible for NHS Health Check and 15 practitioners.
Interventions: The health check was delivered using either the QRISK2 10-year risk calculator (usual practice) or the JBS3 lifetime risk calculator, with heart age, event-free survival age and risk score manipulation (intervention).
Results: Video-recorded health checks were analysed quantitatively (n = 173; JBS3, n = 100; QRISK2, n = 73) and qualitatively (n = 128; n = 64 per group), and video-stimulated recall interviews were undertaken with 40 patients and 15 practitioners, with 10 in-depth case studies. The duration of the health check varied (6.8-38 minutes), but most health checks were short (60% lasting < 20 minutes), with little cardiovascular disease risk discussion (average < 2 minutes). The use of JBS3 was associated with more cardiovascular disease risk discussion and fewer practitioner-dominated consultations than the use of QRISK2. Heart age and visual representations of risk, as used in JBS3, appeared to be better understood by patients than 10-year risk (QRISK2) and, as a result, the use of JBS3 was more likely to lead to discussion of risk factors and their management. Event-free survival age was not well understood by practitioners or patients. However, a lack of effective cardiovascular disease risk discussion in both groups increased the likelihood of a maladaptive coping response (i.e. no risk-reducing behaviour change). In both groups, practitioners often missed opportunities to check patient understanding and to tailor information on cardiovascular disease risk and its management during health checks, confirming apparent practitioner verbal dominance.
Limitations: The main limitations were under-recruitment in some general practices and the resulting imbalance between groups.
Conclusions: Communication of cardiovascular disease risk during health checks was brief, particularly when using QRISK2. Patient understanding of and responses to cardiovascular disease risk information were limited. Practitioners need to better engage patients in discussion of and action-planning for their cardiovascular disease risk to reduce misunderstandings. The use of heart age, visual representation of risk and risk score manipulation was generally seen to be a useful way of doing this. Future work could focus on more fundamental issues of practitioner training and time allocation within health check consultations.
Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10443908.
Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 50. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Keywords: CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CHRONIC DISEASE PREVENTION; HEALTH CHECK; PROTECTION MOTIVATION THEORY; RISK COMMUNICATION.
In England, NHS Health Checks aim to prevent cardiovascular diseases, such as heart attack and stroke. Health checks are conducted in primary care by a health-care assistant or practice nurse, who should measure the patient’s risk of cardiovascular disease before advising them on how to reduce their risk. Cardiovascular disease risk is measured using a cardiovascular disease risk calculator. These calculators use various patient characteristics (e.g. age, sex, blood pressure and cholesterol) to predict how likely patients are to have a heart attack or stroke in the future. The aim of this study was to compare how practitioners explain cardiovascular disease risk to patients during health checks when using two risk calculators: QRISK®2, which measures the risk of heart attack or stroke over the next 10 years (current usual practice), and JBS3 (a newer risk calculator), which gives this risk across the lifetime, is more interactive and has various visual displays of risk. We were interested to see if using JBS3 in health checks would lead to better practitioner and patient understanding of cardiovascular disease risk and result in patients intending to change, or actually changing, their behaviour to reduce their cardiovascular disease risk (compared with QRISK2). Health checks were video-recorded: 73 using QRISK2 and 100 using JBS3. Patients and members of the public advised on the study design, methods and management. Most consultations lasted < 20 minutes, with most time spent discussing the causes of cardiovascular disease. There was evidence that, compared with health checks using JBS3, those using QRISK2 led to less discussion of risk and practitioners speaking far more than patients. Sixty-four health checks from each risk calculator group were examined in depth. Opportunities to check whether or not patients understood the cardiovascular disease risk information and to encourage ways to lower risk were missed, making it less likely that patients would change their behaviour. The way that risk is presented by JBS3 seems to be more easily understood by patients than that presented by QRISK2. Nineteen patients in the QRISK2 group and 21 patients in the JBS3 group were interviewed 4 weeks after the consultation, and the practitioners were interviewed after they had completed all of their health checks. Patients found it difficult to understand and remember what they had been told about their cardiovascular disease risk during their health check. Their understanding and motivation to change behaviour appeared to be higher when they were visually shown how behaviour changes could lower their risk. Practitioners sometimes misunderstood risk and used patients’ reactions to judge whether or not they understood, rather than asking them. Our findings should help to improve how cardiovascular disease risk is communicated during health checks in future, through simple changes to the consultations (e.g. using aspects of JBS3) and by highlighting a gap in practitioners’ training.