Overcoming barriers to engaging socio-economically disadvantaged populations in CHD primary prevention: a qualitative study

Abstract

BackgroundPreventative medicine has become increasingly important in efforts to reduce the burden of chronic disease in industrialised countries. However, interventions that fail to recruit socio-economically representative samples may widen existing health inequalities. This paper explores the barriers and facilitators to engaging a socio-economically disadvantaged (SED) population in primary prevention for coronary heart disease (CHD).MethodsThe primary prevention element of Have a Heart Paisley (HaHP) offered risk screening to all eligible individuals. The programme employed two approaches to engaging with the community: a) a social marketing campaign and b) a community development project adopting primarily face-to-face canvassing. Individuals living in areas of SED were under-recruited via the social marketing approach, but successfully recruited via face-to-face canvassing. This paper reports on focus group discussions with participants, exploring their perceptions about and experiences of both approaches.ResultsVarious reasons were identified for low uptake of risk screening amongst individuals living in areas of high SED in response to the social marketing campaign and a number of ways in which the face-to-face canvassing approach overcame these barriers were identified. These have been categorised into four main themes: (1) processes of engagement; (2) issues of understanding; (3) design of the screening service and (4) the priority accorded to screening. The most immediate barriers to recruitment were the invitation letter, which often failed to reach its target, and the general distrust of postal correspondence. In contrast, participants were positive about the face-to-face canvassing approach. Participants expressed a lack of knowledge and understanding about CHD and their risk of developing it and felt there was a lack of clarity in the information provided in the mailing in terms of the process and value of screening. In contrast, direct face-to-face contact meant that outreach workers could explain what to expect. Participants felt that the procedure for uptake of screening was demanding and inflexible, but that the drop-in sessions employed by the community development project had a major impact on recruitment and retention.ConclusionSocio-economically disadvantaged individuals can be hard-to-reach; engagement requires strategies tailored to the needs of the target population rather than a population-wide approach.

Returning to Work After Electrical Injuries

“…23 This approach is widely used in qualitative studies and allows researchers to analyze textual data in order to identify "thematized meaning" across that data set. Thematic analysis has been used in health, sociological, and psychological studies (see references [24][25][26] for examples).…”

Alcohol and disadvantaged men: A feasibility trial of an intervention delivered by mobile phone

“…The recruitment strategy used evidence‐based techniques for hard to reach and minority groups: culturally sensitive study materials, multiple recruitment strategies and incentives 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43. Two recruitment strategies were assessed: recruitment from general practice registers and by a community outreach strategy.…”

Starting and staying on preventive medication for cardiovascular disease

“…Key considerations have included location, timing (flexibility was needed to enable people to fit attending a clinic around their work or their sometimes unpredictable lives, and enough time was needed to explain risk), providing a nonthreatening (informal) environment and managing expectations. Examples from respondents in Harkins et al's study [33] are illustrative of some of these issues:…”

“…There is consensus in the evidence that 'risk' is a difficult concept to grasp and communicate, for both HCPs and patients, particularly the concept of 'absolute' risk and the use of risk profiles (incorporating multiple rather than individual risk factors) [17 && , [31][32][33][34]. As Hill et al explain, for general practitioners 'communicating a risk derived from population studies to an individual was the challenge' [32] (p. 11).…”