Why do general practitioners not refer patients to behaviour-change programmes after preventive health checks? A mixed-method study

Abstract

Background This study was embedded in the Check-In randomised controlled trial that investigated the effectiveness of general practice-based preventive health checks on adverse health behaviour and early detection of non-communicable diseases offered to individuals with low socioeconomic positions. Despite successful recruitment of patients, the intervention had no effect. One reason for the lack of effectiveness could be low rates of referral to behaviour-change programmes in the municipality, resulting in a low dose of the intervention delivered. The aim of this study is to examine the referral pattern of the general practitioners and potential barriers to referring eligible patients to these behaviour-change programmes. Methods A mixed-method design was used, including patients’ questionnaires, recording sheet from the health checks and semi-structured qualitative interviews with general practitioners. All data used in the study were collected during the time of the intervention. Logistic regressions were used to estimate odds ratios for being eligible and for receiving referrals. The qualitative empirical material was analysed thematically. Emerging themes were grouped, discussed and the material was re-read. The themes were reviewed alongside the analysis of the quantitative material to refine and discuss the themes. Results Of the 364 patients, who attended the health check, 165 (45%) were marked as eligible for a referral to behaviour-change programme by their general practitioner and of these, 90 (55%) received referrals. Daily smoking (OR = 3.22; 95% CI:2.01–5.17), high-risk alcohol consumption (OR = 2.66; 95% CI:1.38–5.12), obesity (OR = 2.89; 95% CI:1.61–5.16) and poor lung function (OR = 2.05; 95% CI:1.14–3.70) were all significantly associated with being eligible, but not with receiving referral. Four themes emerged as the main barriers to referring patients to behaviour-change programmes: 1) general practitioners’ responsibility and ownership for their patients, 2) balancing information and accepting a rejection, 3) assessment of the right time for behavioural change and 4) general practitioners’ attitudes towards behaviour-change programmes in the municipality. Conclusion We identified important barriers among the general practitioners which influenced whether the patients received referrals to behaviour-change programmes in the municipality and thereby influenced the dose of intervention delivered in Check-In. The findings suggest that an effort is needed to assist the collaboration between general practices and the municipalities’ primary preventive services. Trial registration Clinical Trials NCT01979107; October 25, 2013.

Danish feasibility study of a new innovation for treating alcohol disorders in primary care: the 15-method

“…Implementation of screening and brief intervention protocols for alcohol problems have been a challenge in primary care for the past decades [ 23 , 24 ], and so has bridging the gap between primary care and specialized treatment options [ 49 , 50 ]. The 15-method includes aspects which can improve implementation of behavioral change interventions, such as training and education [ 51 – 55 ], on-the-job experience with the intervention [ 54 ] and the possibility of interdisciplinary approaches [ 51 , 52 ].…”

Recruitment in Health Services Research—A Study on Facilitators and Barriers for the Recruitment of Community-Based Healthcare Providers

“…Patient recruitment has previously been described as a ‘sales pitch’ [ 35 , 39 ], which poses a major challenge to healthcare providers. Furthermore, research shows that healthcare providers do not feel comfortable communicating the aims and design of the trial, do not want their patients to feel pressured to participate, and do not feel comfortable dealing with rejection [ 35 , 39 , 40 ]. Offering recruitment skills training in trial preparation workshops can overcome these barriers.…”

Effectiveness of the population-based ‘check your health preventive programme’ conducted in a primary care setting: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

“…However, the actual content of these extra consultations is unknown. A recent Danish study evaluating the effect of preventive health checks in high-risk groups found that only a low proportion of high-risk participants was visiting their general practitioner following a health check, 24 and that general practitioners had several barriers towards referral to municipal behaviour change programmes. 24 Third, although performed in a real-world setting, the CHPP was designed as a health promotion intervention with focus on the individual level.…”

“…A recent Danish study evaluating the effect of preventive health checks in high-risk groups found that only a low proportion of high-risk participants was visiting their general practitioner following a health check, 24 and that general practitioners had several barriers towards referral to municipal behaviour change programmes. 24 Third, although performed in a real-world setting, the CHPP was designed as a health promotion intervention with focus on the individual level. Indeed, the CHPP had local media coverage; however, there were no formalised efforts to decrease disease risk at the local structural level or by explicitly targeting interindividual social connections.…”