Badenbroek Ilse F, Nielen Marcus M J, Hollander Monika, Stol Daphne M, Drijkoningen Astrid E, Kraaijenhagen Roderik A, de Wit Niek J, Schellevis François G
Julius Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85060, 3508 AB Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), The Netherlands.
Prev Med Rep. 2020 Apr 8;19:101092. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2020.101092. eCollection 2020 Sep.
Non-response in prevention programs for cardiometabolic diseases (CMD) in primary care is often overlooked. The aim for this study was to define factors that influence the primary response to a selective CMD prevention program and to determine response-enhancing strategies that influence the willingness to participate. We conducted a non-response analysis within a randomized controlled trial evaluating a selective CMD prevention program, the study was conducted from 2013 to 2018 in Netherlands. A random sample of 5616 patients from 15 general practices were invited to complete a risk score (RS) as initial step of the program. Non-responders received an additional questionnaire. The response on the risk score was 51% (n = 2872). From the 3558 non-response questionnaires sent, 786 (22%) were returned. In a multivariable multilevel regression analysis smoking was independently associated with non-response. Of all reported reasons for non-response 'forgot/no time' accounted for 45%. In total, 73% of the non-responders indicated to reconsider participation when approached differently. A personal approach by the patients' own GP, using advertisements and informative campaigns are potentially the best methods to enhance the response. Although a relatively high proportion did not respond to the invitation for the risk score, the majority of them indicated to be willing to participate if a different invitation strategy would be used. With more time and energy, response rates for CMD prevention programs could possibly increase substantially. A next logical step in this process is to test potential response enhancing strategies in research setting.
基层医疗中针对心脏代谢疾病(CMD)预防项目的无应答情况常常被忽视。本研究的目的是确定影响对选择性CMD预防项目初次应答的因素,并确定能提高参与意愿的增强应答策略。我们在一项评估选择性CMD预防项目的随机对照试验中进行了无应答分析,该研究于2013年至2018年在荷兰开展。从15家全科诊所随机抽取5616名患者,邀请他们完成风险评分(RS)作为该项目的初始步骤。无应答者收到一份额外问卷。风险评分的应答率为51%(n = 2872)。在发出的3558份无应答问卷中,786份(22%)被退回。在多变量多层次回归分析中,吸烟与无应答独立相关。在所有报告的无应答原因中,“忘记/没时间”占45%。总体而言,73%的无应答者表示若采用不同方式联系会重新考虑参与。由患者自己的全科医生进行个人联系、使用广告和宣传活动可能是提高应答的最佳方法。尽管相对较高比例的人未对风险评分邀请作出应答,但如果采用不同的邀请策略,他们中的大多数人表示愿意参与。投入更多时间和精力,CMD预防项目的应答率可能会大幅提高。此过程的下一个合理步骤是在研究环境中测试潜在的增强应答策略。