SynthesisBMC public health2020
A systematic review of factors influencing NHS health check uptake: invitation methods, patient characteristics, and the impact of interventions.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 4 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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Gender innovation in the scientific evidence on interventions to reduce health inequalities in Europe: an umbrella review.International journal for equity in health · 2026Pooled it
- 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
- "Comprehensive Care" Concept in Nursing: Systematic Review.Investigacion y educacion en enfermeria · 2022Pooled it
- Increasing uptake of NHS Health Checks: a randomised controlled trial using GP computer prompts.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021Trial
- Gendered Patterns of Engagement With NHS Health Checks in a Super-Diverse City: Community Perspectives and Implications for Equity.Public health challenges · 2026Article
- Association Between Use of a Primary Care Health Check-Up Tool and the Early Detection of Chronic Diseases: A Non-Randomised Comparative Study from the POZ PLUS Pilot Programme in Poland.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- The effectiveness of interventions used to improve general health check uptake by the older adult population: a systematic review and meta-analysis.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Enabling Health Information Recommendation Using Crowdsourced Refinement in Web-Based Health Information Applications: User-Centered Design Approach and EndoZone Informatics Case Study.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- Impact of Gender on Chronic Complications in Participants With Type 2 Diabetes: Evidence From a Cross-Sectional Study.Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism · 2024Article
- NHS Health Check attendance is associated with reduced multiorgan disease risk: a matched cohort study in the UK Biobank.BMC medicine · 2024Article
- Socioeconomic and behavioral determinants of non-compliance with physician referrals following community screening for diabetes, hypertension and hyperlipidemia: a mixed-methods study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Learning from the universal, proactive outreach of the Brazilian Community Health Worker model: impact of a Community Health and Wellbeing Worker initiative on vaccination, cancer screening and NHS health check uptake in a deprived community in the UK.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Exploring targeted preventive health check interventions - a realist synthesis.BMC public health · 2023Review
- Protocol for the effectiveness evaluation of an antenatal, universally offered, and remotely delivered parenting programme 'Baby Steps' on maternal outcomes: a Born in Bradford's Better Start (BiBBS) study.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Article
- The NHS Health Check programme: a survey of programme delivery in England before and after the Covid-19 pandemic response.NIHR open research · 2023Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe NHS Health Check (NHSHC) is a risk assessment for those aged 40-74 without a pre-existing condition in England, with the aim of preventing stroke, kidney disease, heart disease, type 2 diabetes and dementia. Uptake has been lower than anticipated. Ensuring that a high percentage of eligible patients receive a NHSHC is key to optimising the clinical and cost effectiveness of the programme. The aim of this systematic review is to highlight interventions and invitation methods that increase the uptake of NHSHCs, and to identify whether the effectiveness of these interact with broader patient and contextual factors.
methodA systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA checklist. Papers were eligible if they explored the impact of at least one of (i) interventions, (ii) invitation methods or (iii) broader factors on NHSHC uptake. Ten databases were searched in January 2016 and seven were searched in March 2018. Nine-hundred-and-forty-five papers were identified, 238 were screened and 64 full texts were assessed for eligibility. Nine studies were included in the review.
resultsThe nine studies were all from peer reviewed journals. They included two randomised controlled trials, one observational cohort and six cross-sectional studies. Different invitation methods may be more effective for different groups of patients based on their ethnicity and gender. One intervention to enhance invitation letters effectively increased uptake but another did not. In addition, individual patient characteristics (such as age, gender, ethnicity and risk level) were found to influence uptake. This review also finds that uptake varies significantly by GP practice, which could be due either to unidentified practice-level factors or deprivation.
conclusionsFurther research is needed to assess the effectiveness of different invitation methods for different population groups. Research should examine how existing invitation methods can be enhanced to drive uptake whilst reducing health inequalities.
trial registrationThis systematic review was registered with PROSPERO on 22.02.2016. Registration number CRD42016035626.
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.