ReviewBMJ open2022
NHS Health Check programme: a rapid review update.
Review in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- How Do Participatory Citizenship Models Inform Co-production in Health Research? A Systematic Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Pooled it
- Hearts in motion: Evaluating the utility of a mobile health unit in Ireland for cardiovascular disease prevention.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Criteria and enabling conditions for assessing cash-releasing interventions: An evidence review in the context of the NHS 'three shifts'.Future healthcare journal · 2026Review
- From Assessment to Impact: How Workplace Health Screening Informs Staff Wellbeing in a University Setting.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Ethnic differences in the burden of cardiovascular disease risk factors among adult residents of London: the TOGETHER study.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Effects of a Work-Related Health Check (Check-Up 45+) on Utilization of Preventive and Rehabilitative Services - Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Rapid community "Healthy Heart" screening to identify people at high risk of cardiovascular events.PloS one · 2026Observational
- 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
- Association Between Area-Level Deprivation and Cardio-Metabolic Risk Factors Among the Adult Population in Russia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- 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
- Article
- Prevalence of newly diagnosed hypertension and its associated factors in an opportunistic screening program in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: an institution-based cross-sectional study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Article
- Risk and sex-specific trends of dementia and stroke in Italy Compared to European and high-income countries and the world: global implications.Journal of neurology · 2024Article
- Article
- NHS Health Check attendance is associated with reduced multiorgan disease risk: a matched cohort study in the UK Biobank.BMC medicine · 2024Article
- Assessing the impact of annual health screenings in identifying noncommunicable disease risk factors within Qatar's primary health care corporation Qatari registered population.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- A community health worker led approach to cardiovascular disease prevention in the UK-SPICES-Sussex (scaling-up packages of interventions for cardiovascular disease prevention in selected sites in Europe and Sub-saharan Africa): an implementation research project.Frontiers in health services · 2024Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo update a rapid review published in 2017, which evaluated the NHS Health Check programme.
methodsAn enlarged body of evidence was used to readdress six research objectives from a rapid review published in 2017, relating to the uptake, patient experiences and effectiveness of the NHS Health Check programme. Data sources included MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Global Health, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, NHS Evidence, Google Scholar, Google, ClinicalTrials.gov and the ISRCTN registry, Web of Science, Science Citation Index, The Cochrane Library, NHS Evidence, OpenGrey and hand searching article reference lists. These searches identified records from between January 1996 and December 2019. Screening, data extraction and quality appraisal using the Critical Appraisals Skills Programme checklists were performed in duplicate. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations was implemented. Data were synthesised narratively.
results697 studies were identified, and 29 new studies included in the review update. The number of published studies on the uptake, patient experiences and effectiveness of the NHS Health Check programme has increased by 43% since the rapid review published in 2017. However, findings from the original review remain largely unchanged. NHS Health Checks led to an overall increase in the detection of raised risk factors and morbidities including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, raised blood pressure, cholesterol and chronic kidney disease. Individuals most likely to attend the NHS Health Check programme included women, persons aged ≥60 years and those from more socioeconomically advantaged backgrounds. Opportunistic invitations increased uptake among men, younger persons and those with a higher deprivation level.
conclusionsAlthough results are inconsistent between studies, the NHS Health Check programme is associated with increased detection of heightened cardiovascular disease risk factors and diagnoses. Uptake varied between population subgroups. Opportunistic invitations may increase uptake.
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.