Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25169211›Full record

Trial reportTrials2014

Effectiveness of the population-based Check your health preventive programme conducted in primary care with 4 years follow-up [the CORE trial]: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Helle Terkildsen Maindal, Henrik Støvring, Annelli Sandbaek

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readPragmatic Clinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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.

NCT02028195 naunknown statusnot on this map

The CORE-trial: a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial in Primary Care Investigating Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of the Check Your Health Preventive Programme Offered Population-wide to 30-49 Years

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of AarhusRan2013 to 2019Enrolled11,000ConditionsHealth Promotion, Cardiovascular Disease, Physical Inactivity, Selfreported Quality of HealthArmsHealth check
NCT02615769 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2015, after this paper: background citation

Effect on Attendance if Including Focused Information of Spirometry in Preventive Health Checks - a Randomized Controlled Trial in Primary Health Care

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of AarhusRan2015 to 2017Enrolled4,496ConditionsSpirometry, Patient Participation, Health Literacy, Lung DiseasesArmsfocused information of spirometry in the invitation, standard invitation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Risk scoring for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Helle Terkildsen MaindalDepartment of Public Health, Health Promotion and Health Services, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 2, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark. htm@ph.au.dk.
Henrik Støvring
Annelli Sandbaek

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe periodic health check-up has been a fundamental part of routine medical practice for decades, despite a lack of consensus regarding its value in health promotion and disease prevention. A large-scale Danish population-based preventive programme 'Check your health' was developed based on available evidence of screening and successive accepted treatment, prevention for diseases and health promotion, and is closely aligned with the current health care system.The objective of the 'Check your health' [CORE] trial is to investigate effectiveness on health outcomes of a preventive health check offered at a population-level to all individuals aged 30-49 years, and to establish the cost-effectiveness. METHODS/

designThe trial will be conducted as a pragmatic household-cluster randomised controlled trial involving 10,505 individuals. All individuals within a well-defined geographical area in the Central Denmark Region, Denmark (DK) were randomised to be offered a preventive health check (Intervention group, n = 5250) or to maintain routine access to healthcare until a delayed intervention (Comparison group, n = 5255). The programme consists of a health examination which yields an individual risk profile, and according to this participants are assigned to one of the following interventions: (a) referral to a health promoting consultation in general practice, (b) behavioural programmes at the local Health Centre, or (c) no need for follow-up.The primary outcomes at 4 years follow-up are: ten-year-risk of fatal cardiovascular event (Heart-SCORE model), physical activity level (self-report and cardiorespiratory fitness), quality of life (SF12), sick leave and labour market attachment. Cost-effectiveness will be evaluated according to life years gained, direct costs and total health costs. Intention to treat analysis will be performed. DISCUSSION: Results from the largest Danish health check programme conducted within the current healthcare system, spanning the sectors which share responsibility for the individual, will provide a scientific basis to be used in the development of systems to optimise population health in the 21st century.

trial registrationThe trial has registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with an ID: NCT02028195 (7. March 2014).

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesHealth StatusHealth Status IndicatorsResearch DesignAdultCardiovascular DiseasesClinical ProtocolsCost-Benefit AnalysisDenmarkEmploymentFemaleHealth Care CostsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PromotionHumansIntention to Treat Analysis

Identifiers

PMID25169211
PMCPMC4158060

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.