Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29509767›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2018

The current and potential health benefits of the National Health Service Health Check cardiovascular disease prevention programme in England: A microsimulation study.

Oliver T Mytton, Christopher Jackson, Arno Steinacher, Anna Goodman, Claudia Langenberg, Simon Griffin, Nick Wareham, James Woodcock

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05691790 (Empowering Older People's Preventive Care Utilization Through Mental Model Approach and Patient Activation Approach), which is not on this map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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.

NCT05691790 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Empowering Older People's Preventive Care Utilization Through Mental Model Approach and Patient Activation Approach: a Randomized Control Trial for Promoting Vaccination Uptake

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe University of Hong KongRan2024 to 2025Enrolled270ConditionsHealth CommunicationArmsMMA and patient activation intervention scheme, Control Group
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Co-design of an NHS primary care health check for autistic adults.Autism : the international journal of research and practice · 2023
    Article
  15. Bayesian multistate modelling of incomplete chronic disease burden data.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, (Statistics in Society) · 2023
    Article
  16. Value of Information Analysis in Models to Inform Health Policy.Annual review of statistics and its application · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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
  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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Oliver T MyttonMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3218-9912
Christopher JacksonMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Arno SteinacherMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Anna GoodmanLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Claudia LangenbergMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Simon GriffinMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Nick WarehamMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1422-2993
James WoodcockMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4769-5375
University of Cambridge · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

British Heart Foundation ES/G007462/1Cancer Research UK ES/G007462/1Medical Research Council ES/G007462/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_00002/11Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/4Medical Research Council MR/K021796/1Medical Research Council U105260566Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 087636/Z/08/ZWellcome Trust WT103394
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe National Health Service (NHS) Health Check programme was introduced in 2009 in England to systematically assess all adults in midlife for cardiovascular disease risk factors. However, its current benefit and impact on health inequalities are unknown. It is also unclear whether feasible changes in how it is delivered could result in increased benefits. It is one of the first such programmes in the world. We sought to estimate the health benefits and effect on inequalities of the current NHS Health Check programme and the impact of making feasible changes to its implementation. METHODS AND

findingsWe developed a microsimulation model to estimate the health benefits (incident ischaemic heart disease, stroke, dementia, and lung cancer) of the NHS Health Check programme in England. We simulated a population of adults in England aged 40-45 years and followed until age 100 years, using data from the Health Survey of England (2009-2012) and the English Longitudinal Study of Aging (1998-2012), to simulate changes in risk factors for simulated individuals over time. We used recent programme data to describe uptake of NHS Health Checks and of 4 associated interventions (statin medication, antihypertensive medication, smoking cessation, and weight management). Estimates of treatment efficacy and adherence were based on trial data. We estimated the benefits of the current NHS Health Check programme compared to a healthcare system without systematic health checks. This counterfactual scenario models the detection and treatment of risk factors that occur within 'routine' primary care. We also explored the impact of making feasible changes to implementation of the programme concerning eligibility, uptake of NHS Health Checks, and uptake of treatments offered through the programme. We estimate that the NHS Health Check programme prevents 390 (95% credible interval 290 to 500) premature deaths before 80 years of age and results in an additional 1,370 (95% credible interval 1,100 to 1,690) people being free of disease (ischaemic heart disease, stroke, dementia, and lung cancer) at age 80 years per million people aged 40-45 years at baseline. Over the life of the cohort (i.e., followed from 40-45 years to 100 years), the changes result in an additional 10,000 (95% credible interval 8,200 to 13,000) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and an additional 9,000 (6,900 to 11,300) years of life. This equates to approximately 300 fewer premature deaths and 1,000 more people living free of these diseases each year in England. We estimate that the current programme is increasing QALYs by 3.8 days (95% credible interval 3.0-4.7) per head of population and increasing survival by 3.3 days (2.5-4.1) per head of population over the 60 years of follow-up. The current programme has a greater absolute impact on health for those living in the most deprived areas compared to those living in the least deprived areas (4.4 [2.7-6.5] days of additional quality-adjusted life per head of population versus 2.8 [1.7-4.0] days; 5.1 [3.4-7.1] additional days lived per head of population versus 3.3 [2.1-4.5] days). Making feasible changes to the delivery of the existing programme could result in a sizable increase in the benefit. For example, a strategy that combines extending eligibility to those with preexisting hypertension, extending the upper age of eligibility to 79 years, increasing uptake of health checks by 30%, and increasing treatment rates 2.5-fold amongst eligible patients (i.e., 'maximum potential' scenario) results in at least a 3-fold increase in benefits compared to the current programme (1,360 premature deaths versus 390; 5,100 people free of 1 of the 4 diseases versus 1,370; 37,000 additional QALYs versus 10,000; 33,000 additional years of life versus 9,000). Ensuring those who are assessed and eligible for statins receive statins is a particularly important strategy to increase benefits. Estimates of overall benefit are based on current incidence and management, and future declines in disease incidence or improvements in treatment could alter the actual benefits observed in the long run. We have focused on the cardiovascular element of the NHS Health Check programme. Some important noncardiovascular health outcomes (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] prevention from smoking cessation and cancer prevention from weight loss) and other parts of the programme (e.g., brief interventions to reduce harmful alcohol consumption) have not been modelled.

conclusionsOur model indicates that the current NHS Health Check programme is contributing to improvements in health and reducing health inequalities. Feasible changes in the organisation of the programme could result in more than a 3-fold increase in health benefits.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesDelivery of Health CareAdultAgedAged, 80 and overComputer SimulationEnglandFemaleHealth Status DisparitiesHumansInsurance BenefitsMaleMiddle AgedNational Health ProgramsProgram EvaluationQuality Improvement

Identifiers

PMID29509767
PMCPMC5839536
OpenAlexW2792615715

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.