RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 What affects response rates in primary healthcare-based programmes? An analysis of individual and unit-related factors associated with increased odds of non-response based on HCV screening in the general population in Poland
JF BMJ Open
JO BMJ Open
FD British Medical Journal Publishing Group
SP e013359
DO 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013359
VO 6
IS 12
A1 Parda, Natalia
A1 Stępień, Małgorzata
A1 Zakrzewska, Karolina
A1 Madaliński, Kazimierz
A1 Kołakowska, Agnieszka
A1 Godzik, Paulina
A1 Rosińska, Magdalena
YR 2016
UL http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/12/e013359.abstract
AB Objectives Response rate in public health programmes may be a limiting factor. It is important to first consider their delivery and acceptability for the target. This study aimed at determining individual and unit-related factors associated with increased odds of non-response based on hepatitis C virus screening in primary healthcare.Design Primary healthcare units (PHCUs) were extracted from the Register of Health Care Centres. Each of the PHCUs was to enrol adult patients selected on a random basis. Data on the recruitment of PHCUs and patients were analysed. Multilevel modelling was applied to investigate individual and unit-related factors associated with non-response. Multilevel logistic model was developed with fixed effects and only a random intercept for the unit. Preliminary analysis included a random effect for unit and each of the individual or PHCU covariates separately. For each of the PHCU covariates, we applied a two-level model with individual covariates, unit random effect and a single fixed effect of this unit covariate.Setting This study was conducted in primary care units in selected provinces in Poland.Participants A total of 242 PHCUs and 24 480 adults were invited. Of them, 44 PHCUs and 20 939 patients agreed to participate. Both PHCUs and patients were randomly selected.Results Data on 44 PHCUs and 24 480 patients were analysed. PHCU-level factors and recruitment strategies were important predictors of non-response. Unit random effect was significant in all models. Larger and private units reported higher non-response rates, while for those with a history of running public health programmes the odds of non-response was lower. Proactive recruitment, more working hours devoted to the project and patient resulted in higher acceptance of the project. Higher number of personnel had no such effect.Conclusions Prior to the implementation of public health programme, several factors that could hinder its execution should be addressed.