Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39521474›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2024

A service evaluation of the uptake and effectiveness of a digital delivery of the NHS health check service.

Ruth Salway, Carlos Sillero-Rejon, Chloe Forte, Elisabeth Grey, Patricia Jessiman, Hugh McLeod, Rebecca Harkes, Paul Stokes, Frank De Vocht, Rona Campbell and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

11 authors.

Ruth Salway *Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK ruth.salway@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3242-3951
Carlos Sillero-Rejon *Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Chloe FortePopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2466-7101
Elisabeth GreyPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Patricia JessimanPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Hugh McLeodPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Rebecca HarkesPublic Health, London Borough of Southwark, London, UK.
Paul StokesPrevention and Health Improvement, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Joint Public Health Directorate, Cambridge, UK.
Frank De VochtPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Rona CampbellPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Russell JagoPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare the uptake, effectiveness and costs of a digital version of the National Health Service (NHS) Health Check (DHC) to the standard face-to-face NHS Health Check (F2F). PARTICIPANTS AND

settingA random sample of 9000 patients aged 40-74 eligible for an NHS Health Check in Southwark, England, between January and April 2023. INTERVENTION AND

designThe DHC was an online tool with a health assessment section, an advice and support section, and a section on how to obtain and update follow-up physical measures (blood pressure, cholesterol, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)). 6000 patients from GP records were randomly allocated to receive a DHC invitation and 3000 to receive an F2F invitation. Those invited to DHC were able to choose F2F if they preferred. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was the uptake of any type of health check, either a completed F2F appointment or completion of the DHC health assessment section, along with demographics and data on appointments, medications and referrals within the study period. QRISK3 and QDiabetes risk scores were calculated. Management and operation costs were estimated for F2F and DHC pathways.

resultsExcluding participants who moved away or died, the DHC uptake to the health assessment section was 21% (1189/5705), with a further 3% (198/5705) choosing F2F, compared with 11% (305/2900) for F2F completion (p<0.001). The DHC uptake was lower among those from Black (14%) and Mixed (13%) compared with White (29%) ethnicities (p<0.001), and there was no evidence of higher DHC uptake among groups less likely to engage in NHS Health Checks. Of those who completed the health assessment, 60% (714) completed the support section, and 7% (84) completed the provision and updating of physical measures. Appointments, medications and referrals were lower among DHC service users than among F2F users (p<0.001). The estimated total management and operation costs for F2F were £154.80 per user, compared with total management and operation costs for DHC of £68.48 per user for health assessment only, £134.46 including the support section and £1479.01 per user with completed physical measures.

conclusionsThe study suggests that a choice of Health Check pathways may potentially reduce pressures on the NHS. Cholesterol and HbA1c were not generally known, and the options to obtain and update these measures require further development for the DHC to be considered a viable comparable alternative to the F2F service for estimating cardiovascular disease and diabetes risk. Strategies are still needed to reach those groups not currently engaging with NHS Health Checks. REGISTRATION: This study was registered on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/y87zt.

Indexed as

State MedicineAdultAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisEnglandFemaleGlycated HemoglobinHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CarePhysical ExaminationGlycated HemoglobineHealthElectronic Health RecordsHealth economicsPrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID39521474
PMCPMC11552007

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.