ArticleJournal of epidemiology and community health2016
Scottish Keep Well health check programme: an interrupted time series analysis.
Article in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Do cardiovascular disease prevention programs in northern Sweden impact on population health? An interrupted time series analysis.BMC public health · 2019Article
- Effectiveness of the Mobile Emergency Medical Services (SAMU): use of interrupted time series.Revista de saude publica · 2019Article
- 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 mapObservational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEffective interventions are available to reduce cardiovascular risk. Recently, health check programmes have been implemented to target those at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), but there is much debate whether these are likely to be effective at population level. This paper evaluates the impact of wave 1 of Keep Well, a Scottish health check programme, on cardiovascular outcomes.
methodsInterrupted time series analyses were employed, comparing trends in outcomes in participating and non-participating practices before and after the introduction of health checks. Health outcomes are defined as CVD mortality, incident hospitalisations and prescribing of cardiovascular drugs.
resultsAfter accounting for secular trends and seasonal variation, coronary heart disease mortality and hospitalisations changed by 0.4% (95% CI -5.2% to 6.3%) and -1.1% (-3.4% to 1.3%) in Keep Well practices and by -0.3% (-2.7% to 2.2%) and -0.1% (-1.8% to 1.7%) in non-Keep Well practices, respectively, following the intervention. Adjusted changes in prescribing in Keep Well and non-Keep Well practices were 0.4% (-10.4% to 12.5%) and -1.5% (-9.4% to 7.2%) for statins; -2.5% (-12.3% to 8.4%) and -1.6% (-7.1% to 4.3%) for antihypertensive drugs; and -0.9% (-6.5% to 5.0%) and -2.4% (-10.1% to 6.0%) for antiplatelet drugs.
conclusionsAny impact of the Keep Well health check intervention on CVD outcomes and prescribing in Scotland was very small. Findings do not support the use of the screening approach used by current health check programmes to address CVD. We used an interrupted time series method, but evaluation methods based on randomisation are feasible and preferable and would have allowed more reliable conclusions. These should be considered more often by policymakers at an early stage in programme design when there is uncertainty regarding programme effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.