Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25071065›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2014

The impact of NHS Health Checks on the prevalence of disease in general practices: a controlled study.

Michael Caley, Paramdip Chohan, James Hooper, Nicola Wright

Abstract readControlled Clinical TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Delivery and impact of the NHS Health Check in the first 8 years: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. NHS Health Checks: an observational study of equity and outcomes 2009-2017.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021
    Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. NHS Health Check comorbidity and management: an observational matched study in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017 · on this map
    Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The status quo is not an evidence-based option.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015
    Article
  20. A qualitative investigation of non-response in NHS health checks.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Michael CaleyPublic Health Warwickshire, Warwick.
Paramdip ChohanPublic Health Warwickshire, Warwick.
James HooperPublic Health Warwickshire, Warwick.
Nicola WrightPublic Health Warwickshire, Warwick.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNHS Health Checks is a national case-finding and vascular risk assessment programme in England. No research has been published to assess the impact of NHS Health Checks on the prevalence of chronic disease in GP practices.

aimTo examine the impact of NHS Health Checks on the prevalence of hypertension, coronary heart disease (CHD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), atrial fibrillation (AF), and diabetes within practices, and compare this with usual medical care. DESIGN AND

settingA non-randomised controlled study in a mixed rural and urban county in England.

methodThirty-eight GP practices provided NHS Health Checks over a 3-year period. Forty-one practices that did not provide Health Checks acted as controls. t-tests and multiple linear regression were used to assess the difference in prevalence of disease between intervention group and control group practices, and the impact of NHS Health Checks on this.

resultsThroughout the duration of the study, 1142 previously undiagnosed cases of disease were detected through a total of 16 669 NHS Health Checks. Despite this, there were no significant differences in the change to the prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, CHD, CKD, and AF in practices providing NHS Health Checks compared with control practices. Regression analysis did not demonstrate that there was any significant association between the proportion of the eligible population of a practice having completed NHS Health Checks and changes in the prevalence of the five conditions studied.

conclusionIn practices providing NHS Health Checks, the change in the reported prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, CHD, CKD, and AF did not differ from that of practices providing usual care.

Indexed as

General PracticeHealth Care ReformCardiovascular DiseasesChecklistEnglandHumansNational Health ProgramsPrevalenceProgram EvaluationQuality Assurance, Health CareReferral and ConsultationRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsState Medicinecardiovascular diseasehealth checksprimary carerisk factorsscreening

Identifiers

PMID25071065
PMCPMC4111345

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.