ArticlePLoS medicine2018
Future cost-effectiveness and equity of the NHS Health Check cardiovascular disease prevention programme: Microsimulation modelling using data from Liverpool, UK.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stakeholders' perceptions and experiences of factors influencing the commissioning, delivery, and uptake of general health checks: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Health Economic Research Assessing the Value of Early Detection of Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Pooled it
- Incorporating Equity Concerns in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Systematic Literature Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2022Pooled it
- Association between utilization of community- based chronic disease examination services and disease control outcomes among patients with hypertension and diabetes.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Microsimulation Modeling for Health Decision Sciences Using C++: A Tutorial.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Review
- Exploring the contribution of risk factors on major illness: a microsimulation study in England, 2023-2043.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Highlights from the Manifesto on the Health Economics of Cardiovascular Disease Prevention.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Review
- The potential impact of policies and structural interventions in reducing cardiovascular disease and mortality: a systematic review of simulation-based studies.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Article
- Optimal risk-assessment scheduling for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, (Statistics in Society) · 2025Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- Public health economic modelling in evaluations of salt and/or alcohol policies: a systematic scoping review.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Utilization of preventative health checkup services in China among middle-aged and older adult population: evidence from China's 28 provinces.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Mapping the costs and socioeconomic characteristics involved in traumatic brain injuries: a scoping review.Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 2024Article
- Evaluating the influence of taxation and social security policies on psychological distress: A microsimulation study of the UK during the COVID-19 economic crisis.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2024Article
- Decomposition analysis on the equity of health examination utilization for the middle-aged and elderly people in China: based on longitudinal CHARLS data from 2011 to 2018.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Cost-effectiveness of applying high-sensitivity troponin I to a score for cardiovascular risk prediction in asymptomatic population.PloS one · 2024Article
- Projected health and economic impacts of sugar-sweetened beverage taxation in Germany: A cross-validation modelling study.PLoS medicine · 2023Article
- Rutin and quercetagetin enhance the regeneration potential of young and aging bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells in the rat infarcted myocardium.Molecular and cellular biochemistry · 2023Article
- NHS Health Check programme: a rapid review update.BMJ open · 2022Review
- Societal and equity challenges for Brain Health Services. A user manual for Brain Health Services-part 6 of 6.Alzheimer's research & therapy · 2021Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAiming to contribute to prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), the National Health Service (NHS) Health Check programme has been implemented across England since 2009. The programme involves cardiovascular risk stratification-at 5-year intervals-of all adults between the ages of 40 and 74 years, excluding any with preexisting vascular conditions (including CVD, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension, among others), and offers treatment to those at high risk. However, the cost-effectiveness and equity of population CVD screening is contested. This study aimed to determine whether the NHS Health Check programme is cost-effective and equitable in a city with high levels of deprivation and CVD. METHODS AND
findingsIMPACTNCD is a dynamic stochastic microsimulation policy model, calibrated to Liverpool demographics, risk factor exposure, and CVD epidemiology. Using local and national data, as well as drawing on health and social care disease costs and health-state utilities, we modelled 5 scenarios from 2017 to 2040: Scenario (A): continuing current implementation of NHS Health Check;Scenario (B): implementation 'targeted' toward areas in the most deprived quintile with increased coverage and uptake;Scenario (C): 'optimal' implementation assuming optimal coverage, uptake, treatment, and lifestyle change;Scenario (D): scenario A combined with structural population-wide interventions targeting unhealthy diet and smoking;Scenario (E): scenario B combined with the structural interventions as above. We compared all scenarios with a counterfactual of no-NHS Health Check. Compared with no-NHS Health Check, the model estimated cumulative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (discounted £/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) to be 11,000 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] -270,000 to 320,000) for scenario A, 1,500 (-91,000 to 100,000) for scenario B, -2,400 (-6,500 to 5,700) for scenario C, -5,100 (-7,400 to -3,200) for scenario D, and -5,000 (-7,400 to -3,100) for scenario E. Overall, scenario A is unlikely to become cost-effective or equitable, and scenario B is likely to become cost-effective by 2040 and equitable by 2039. Scenario C is likely to become cost-effective by 2030 and cost-saving by 2040. Scenarios D and E are likely to be cost-saving by 2021 and 2023, respectively, and equitable by 2025. The main limitation of the analysis is that we explicitly modelled CVD and diabetes mellitus only.
conclusionsAccording to our analysis of the situation in Liverpool, current NHS Health Check implementation appears neither equitable nor cost-effective. Optimal implementation is likely to be cost-saving but not equitable, while targeted implementation is likely to be both. Adding structural policies targeting cardiovascular risk factors could substantially improve equity and generate cost savings.
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.