ArticlePLOS global public health2025
The effectiveness of interventions used to improve general health check uptake by the older adult population: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Determinants of the Uptake and Frequency of Use of a Web Portal Digital Health Intervention in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and/or Coronary Heart Disease: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Trial
- A theory- and evidence-based holistic intervention to enhance the uptake of preventive eye examination among the elderly centre members.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Undergoing general health check enable early detection of common diseases and giving individuals a sense of control over their wellbeing. However, the general health check uptakes are typically unsatisfactory. Various interventions have been introduced to improve general health check uptakes. This review aims to answer how well these interventions work. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in four electronic databases in August 2020 and updated between 2021 and 2024. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that met the inclusion criteria were selected. Meta-analysis was performed on qualified RCTs to estimate the overall effectiveness of the interventions. The components of intervention were characterised using the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy. A total of 3360 records were screened. Eight RCTs were finally included. Among these RCTs, nine types of interventions were identified with all implemented in the invitation stage, including enhanced invitation letters, telephone invitations, question-behaviour-effect (QBE) questionnaires, financial incentives, leaflets, pre-notification short message service (SMS), SMS reminders, reminder letters and point-of-care automated prompts to clinical staff. All these interventions showed a significant improvement in the general health check uptakes than the control groups, except leaflets and QBE questionnaires. A total of fifteen behaviour change techniques were used in these interventions. A meta-analysis showed the pooled effect of these interventions was significantly associated with the improvement in the general health check uptakes than the control (OR =1.30, 95% CI =1.15 - 1.46). However, the high heterogeneity observed (84%) could reduce the reliability of the pooled summary effect. This review found that interventions primarily implemented during the invitation process are effective in improving the general health check uptake rates. Future research should aim to extend these interventions beyond the invitation stage to address internal and external barriers that deter older adults from seeking general health checks. The systematic review protocol is registered on PROSPERO (ref: CRD42021221041).
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.