Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28801437›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2017

Patient experience of NHS health checks: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis.

Juliet A Usher-Smith, Emma Harte, Calum MacLure, Adam Martin, Catherine L Saunders, Catherine Meads, Fiona M Walter, Simon J Griffin, Jonathan Mant

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 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. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Barriers and Facilitators of NHS Health Checks in Socioeconomically Deprived Communities in the North East of England: A Qualitative Study With Peer Researchers.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Juliet A Usher-SmithThe Primary Care Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Emma HarteRAND Europe, Westbrook Centre, Cambridge, UK.
Calum MacLureRAND Europe, Westbrook Centre, Cambridge, UK.
Adam MartinAcademic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Catherine L SaundersThe Primary Care Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Catherine MeadsFaculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK.
Fiona M WalterThe Primary Care Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Simon J GriffinThe Primary Care Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Jonathan MantThe Primary Care Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/4
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo review the experiences of patients attending NHS Health Checks in England.

designA systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies with a thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. DATA SOURCES: An electronic literature search of Medline, Embase, Health Management Information Consortium, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, PsycInfo, Web of Science, OpenGrey, the Cochrane Library, National Health Service (NHS) Evidence, Google Scholar, Google, Clinical Trials.gov and the ISRCTN registry to 09/11/16 with no language restriction and manual screening of reference lists of all included papers. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Primary research reporting experiences of patients who have attended NHS Health Checks.

results20 studies met the inclusion criteria, 9 reporting quantitative data and 15 qualitative data. There were consistently high levels of reported satisfaction in surveys, with over 80% feeling that they had benefited from an NHS Health Check. Data from qualitative studies showed that the NHS Health Check had been perceived to act as a wake-up call for many who reported having gone on to make substantial lifestyle changes which they attributed to the NHS Health Check. However, some had been left with a feeling of unmet expectations, were confused about or unable to remember their risk scores, found the lifestyle advice too simplistic and non-personalised or were confused about follow-up.

conclusionsWhile participants were generally very supportive of the NHS Health Check programme and examples of behaviour change were reported, there are a number of areas where improvements could be made. These include greater clarity around the aims of the programme within the promotional material, more proactive support for lifestyle change and greater appreciation of the challenges of communicating risk and the limitations of relying on the risk score alone as a trigger for facilitating behaviour change.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CarePatient SatisfactionPreventive Health ServicesState MedicineEnglandHealth BehaviorHealth PromotionHumansQualitative ResearchNHS Health Checkpatient experiencequalitative synthesissystematic review

Identifiers

PMID28801437
PMCPMC5724113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.