Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jan 21;21(1):e11658.
doi: 10.2196/11658.

Digital Recruitment and Acceptance of a Stepwise Model to Prevent Chronic Disease in the Danish Primary Care Sector: Cross-Sectional Study

Lars Bruun Larsen  1 , Jens Sondergaard  1 , Janus Laust Thomsen  2 , Anders Halling  3 , Anders Larrabee Sønderlund  1 , Jeanette Reffstrup Christensen  1 , Trine Thilsing  1
Affiliations

Digital Recruitment and Acceptance of a Stepwise Model to Prevent Chronic Disease in the Danish Primary Care Sector: Cross-Sectional Study

Lars Bruun Larsen et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: During recent years, stepwise approaches to health checks have been advanced as an alternative to general health checks. In 2013, we set up the Early Detection and Prevention project (Tidlig Opsporing og Forebyggelse, TOF) to develop a stepwise approach aimed at patients at high or moderate risk of a chronic disease. A novel feature was the use of a personal digital mailbox for recruiting participants. A personal digital mailbox is a secure digital mailbox provided by the Danish public authorities. Apart from being both safe and secure, it is a low-cost, quick, and easy way to reach Danish residents.

Objective: In this study we analyze the association between the rates of acceptance of 2 digital invitations sent to a personal digital mailbox and the sociodemographic determinants, medical treatment, and health care usage in a stepwise primary care model for the prevention of chronic diseases.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the rates of acceptance of 2 digital invitations sent to randomly selected residents born between 1957 and 1986 and residing in 2 Danish municipalities. The outcome was acceptance of the 2 digital invitations. Statistical associations were determined by Poisson regression. Data-driven chi-square automatic interaction detection method was used to generate a decision tree analysis, predicting acceptance of the digital invitations.

Results: A total of 8814 patients received an invitation in their digital mailbox from 47 general practitioners. A total of 40.22% (3545/8814) accepted the first digital invitation, and 30.19 % (2661/8814) accepted both digital invitations. The rates of acceptance of both digital invitations were higher among women, older patients, patients of higher socioeconomic status, and patients not diagnosed with or being treated for diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or cardiovascular disease.

Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study to report on the rates of acceptance of digital invitations to participate in a stepwise model for prevention of chronic diseases. More studies of digital invitations are needed to determine if the acceptance rates seen in this study should be expected from future studies as well. Similarly, more research is needed to determine whether a multimodal recruitment approach, including digital invitations to personal digital mailboxes will reach hard-to-reach subpopulations more effectively than digital invitations only.

Keywords: clinical decision support systems; cross-sectional studies; promotion of health.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram from source population to study population. GP: general practitioner.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Chi-square automatic interaction detection analysis of the acceptance of the first digital invitation. GP: general practitioner.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Krogsbøll LT, Jørgensen KJ, Grønhøj Larsen C, Gøtzsche PC. General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Br Med J. 2012 Nov 20;345:e7191. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e7191. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/23169868 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Si S, Moss J, Sullivan T, Newton S, Stocks N. Effectiveness of general practice-based health checks: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Gen Pract. 2014 Jan;64(618):e47–53. doi: 10.3399/bjgp14X676456. http://bjgp.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=24567582 64/618/e47 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Prochazka A, Caverly T. General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease: summary review of primary findings and conclusions. JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Mar 11;173(5):371–2. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.3187.1556801 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Capewell S, Graham H. Will cardiovascular disease prevention widen health inequalities? PLoS Med. 2010 Aug 24;7(8):e1000320. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000320. http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000320 - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gøtzsche P, Jørgensen K, Krogsbøll L. General health checks don't work. Br Med J. 2014;348:g3680. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g3680. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types