Skip to main content

Table 5 Study findings on impact of deprivation on uptake. Quintile/tertile 1 refers to the most deprived group. Note that some studies [19, 22, 25, 26] coded deprivation so that quintile/tertile 1 referred to the least deprived group, but that this has been reversed for the current narrative synthesis in order to match other studies’ reporting standards and enhance comparability across studies. IMD = Index of Multiple Deprivation, AOR = adjusted odds ratio. OR = odds ratio. CI = confidence intervals

From: A systematic review of factors influencing NHS health check uptake: invitation methods, patient characteristics, and the impact of interventions

Study

Findings

Artac et al., 2013 [20]

Year 1 analyses (high-risk patients only)

IMD Tertile 3 vs. 1: AOR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.69–1.01, p > .050

IMD Tertile 2 vs. 1: AOR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.79–1.13, p > .050

Year 2 analyses (all eligible patients)

IMD Tertile 3 vs. 1: AOR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.73–0.87, p < .010 IMD Tertile 2 vs. 1: AOR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.78–0.90, p < .010

Attwood et al., 2016 [19]

Unadjusted analyses

IMD Quintile 2 vs. 5: OR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.39–3.38, p < .010

IMD Quintile 1 vs. 5: OR = 2.90, 95% CI = 1.84–4.58, p < .010

Adjusted analyses

IMD Quintile 2 vs. 5: AOR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.18–0.67, p < .050

IMD Quintile 1 vs. 5: AOR = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.20–0.88, p < .050

Cochrane et al., 2013 [23]

Lowest attendance in tertile 3 (attendance rate = 42.6%, p < .050)

Highest attendance in tertile 1 (attendance rate = 48.4%, p < .050

Deprivation was no longer significant when analyses were adjusted for gender, age, risk category and practice size

AOR = 1.12, 95% CI = 0.96–1.30

Coghill et al., 2018 [22]

Non-significant effect of deprivation on uptake (p = .053)

Cook et al., 2016 [26]

Lowest uptake in Quintile 1 with uptake rates of 0.31 and 0.38 for males and females respectively, p < .001

Highest uptake in the Quintile 5, with uptake rates of 0.53 and 0.60 respectively, p < .001

Dalton et al., 2011 [24]

No significant effect of deprivation (p > .050)

Gidlow et al., 2014 [9]

IMD Quintile 5 vs. 1: OR = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.23–2.05, p < .001

IMD Quintile 4 vs. 1: OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.06–1.61, p = .014

IMD Quintile 3 vs. 1: OR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.03–1.49, p = .022

IMD Quintile 2 vs. 1: OR = 1.11, 95% CI = 0.87–1.43, p = .395

Overall effect of deprivation p = .008

McDermott et al., 2018 [25]

IMD Quintile 4 vs. 1: AOR = 2.78, 95% CI = 1.87–4.12, p < .001

IMD Quintile 3 vs. 1: AOR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.95–1.39, p = .156

IMD Quintile 2 vs. 1: AOR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.95–1.24, p = .214

(Note, no data was collected from Quintile 5 in this study)

Sallis et al., 2016 [21]

IMD Quintile 5 vs. 1: AOR = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.14–2.26, p < .010

All other comparisons against Quintile 1 (baseline) p > .010