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

StudyFindings
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
\