Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37881459›Full record

ArticleNIHR open research2023

The NHS Health Check programme: a survey of programme delivery in England before and after the Covid-19 pandemic response.

Erica Wirrmann Gadsby, Janet Krska, Claire Duddy, Vivienne Hibberd, Geoff Wong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NIHR open research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Erica Wirrmann GadsbyFaculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland, FK9 4LA, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4151-5911
Janet KrskaMedway School of Pharmacy, Universities of Greenwich and Kent, Medway, ME4 4TB, UK.
Claire DuddyNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Vivienne HibberdPublic Involvement in Pharmacy Studies Group, Medway School of Pharmacy, Medway, ME4 4TB, UK.
Geoff WongNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5384-4157

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: This study investigated NHS Health Check programme delivery before and after the Covid-19 pandemic response, with a focus on support services and referral methods available to Health Check attendees. The NHS Health Check is an important part of England's Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) prevention programme. Methods: Public health commissioners from all 151 local authorities responsible for commissioning the NHS Health Check programme were surveyed in 2021, using an online questionnaire to capture detail about programme delivery, changes in delivery because of the pandemic response, and monitoring of programme outcomes. Four-point rating scales were used to obtain level of confidence in capacity, accessibility and usage of follow-on support services for Health Check attendees. A typology of programme delivery was developed, and associations between delivery categories and a range of relevant variables were assessed using one-way analysis of variance. Results: Sixty-eight responses were received on behalf of 74 (of 151) local authorities (49%), across all geographical regions. Our findings suggest a basic typology of delivery, though with considerable variation in who is providing the Checks, where and how, and with continued changes prompted by the Covid-19 pandemic. Support for risk management is highly varied with notable gaps in some areas. Local authorities using a model of delivery that includes community venues tended to have a higher number of services to support behaviour change following the Check, and greater confidence in the accessibility and usage of these services. A minority of local authorities gather data on referrals for Health Check attendees, or on outcomes of referrals. Conclusions: The Covid-19 pandemic has prompted continued changes in delivery, which are likely to influence patient experience and outcomes; these need careful evaluation. The programme's delivery and commissioners' intentions to follow through risk communication with appropriate support is challenged by the complexity of the commissioning landscape.

Indexed as

cardiovascular diseasehealth checklocal governmentpreventionpublic health

Identifiers

PMID37881459
PMCPMC10593320

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.