ArticlePublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2026
Improving case-finding of long-term health problems in disadvantaged communities: A Policy-focused Evidence Brief.
Article in Public health in practice (Oxford, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current challenges: Case finding, which actively identifies undiagnosed conditions, is key to tackling the growing chronic disease burden, especially in disadvantaged groups. Diseases like type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease already cause millions of preventable deaths, with numbers rising due to aging populations, urbanization, and widening inequalities. The poorest communities bear the heaviest load, with higher disease rates and lower diagnosis. Traditional healthcare models, which wait for patients to seek care, leave millions undiagnosed and untreated. Proactive case finding is a proven way to reduce disparities, improve outcomes, and ease the strain on healthcare systems. Key evidence to inform policy: This review identified two main approaches: targeted searches of primary care electronic health records (EHRs) to identify and engage high-risk individuals, and opportunistic screening in community, workplace, and emergency department settings. Systematic reviews and smaller observational studies, predominantly from high-income healthcare systems, support community-based health checks in trusted venues, workplace hypertension screening, and follow-up of elevated blood pressure readings in emergency departments, though evidence for these approaches is more limited. A stepped-wedge RCT found that targeted outreach nearly doubled diagnosis and treatment rates for cardiovascular risk factors compared with opportunistic case-finding (19.7% vs 10.8%). Meta-analyses of over 480,000 women found that self-sampling approximately doubled cervical screening uptake, with uptake increasing threefold when combined with community health worker support among under-screened ethnic minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged women. A cluster-randomised trial of over 74,000 participants showed that active case-finding using symptom questionnaires and handheld flowmeters identified four times more undiagnosed COPD than opportunistic screening, and was cost-effective at £16,596 per QALY gained. Further considerations and implications: This review identifies targeted case-finding in underserved communities as an evidence-based, high-impact strategy for early detection of chronic disease, provided it is integrated with sufficient downstream diagnostic and treatment capacity.
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.