ArticleBMJ open2025
Exploring service users' and healthcare professionals' experience of digital and face-to-face Health Checks in England: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn England, eligible adults aged 40-74 years are invited to attend a face-to-face (F2F) NHS Health Check appointment every 5 years. A digital version of the Health Check was introduced by a local authority as an alternative for those hesitant or less able to attend an F2F appointment.
objectivesThis qualitative study aimed to understand service users' (SUs) and healthcare professionals' (HCPs) experiences and opinions of F2F Health Checks and digital Health Checks (DHC), identify barriers and facilitators of the F2F Health Check and DHC pathways, and recommend potential improvements.
designThis is a qualitative study, involving interviews with a purposive sample of participants. PARTICIPANTS AND
settingA purposive sample of 30 SUs and 8 HCPs were recruited by an external market service company in the London Borough of Southwark.
methodsSemistructured interviews were conducted, which included questions on understanding why SUs chose a type of Health Check, their experiences of the service and suggestions for improvement. HCP interviews covered HCP experiences of providing both services, including any impact on workload. The Framework method of thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.
resultsSUs identified benefits of the DHC service including its convenience, ease of use and access. Both SUs and HCPs acknowledged the limitations of the DHC, including self-reporting physical measures (eg, blood pressure and cholesterol levels) or difficulties going elsewhere to measure them, and the lack of opportunity to discuss health with a professional. SUs and HCPs both noted the lack of available appointments and time constraints as barriers associated with the F2F service.
conclusionsBoth HCPs and SUs perceive that in its current form, the DHC has benefits and barriers to its use. If these are adequately addressed, the DHC may help address the demand and pressure within General Practitioner (GP) clinics. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study was registered on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/y87zt/.
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.