Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29813056›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2018

Future cost-effectiveness and equity of the NHS Health Check cardiovascular disease prevention programme: Microsimulation modelling using data from Liverpool, UK.

Chris Kypridemos, Brendan Collins, Philip McHale, Helen Bromley, Paula Parvulescu, Simon Capewell, Martin O'Flaherty

Open 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. 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
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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.

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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Optimal risk-assessment scheduling for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, (Statistics in Society) · 2025
    Article
  10. 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
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chris KypridemosDepartment of Public Health and Policy, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0746-9229
Brendan CollinsDepartment of Public Health and Policy, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3023-8189
Philip McHaleDepartment of Public Health and Policy, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Helen BromleyDepartment of Public Health and Policy, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Paula ParvulescuPublic Health Department, Liverpool City Council, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Simon CapewellDepartment of Public Health and Policy, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Martin O'FlahertyDepartment of Public Health and Policy, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8944-4131
University of Liverpool · GBLiverpool City Council · GB

Funding

Economic Analyses of Policy Strategies to Improve Diet and Reduce CVDR01HL130735 · NHLBI · TUFTS UNIVERSITY BOSTON · PI MICHA, EIRINI (RENATA) · 2016 to 2019
$3.1M
Medical Research Council G0900847Medical Research Council MR/K006665/1NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL130735
6 · The paper itself

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

Health Status DisparitiesAdultAgedCardiovascular DiseasesCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleForecastingHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, TheoreticalProgram EvaluationRisk Reduction BehaviorState MedicineUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID29813056
PMCPMC5973555
OpenAlexW2807453560

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.