Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1996
Costs and cost effectiveness of health checks conducted by nurses in primary care: the Oxcheck study.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Systematic versus opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Lifestyle modifications to prevent and control hypertension. 1. Methods and an overview of the Canadian recommendations. Canadian Hypertension Society, Canadian Coalition for High Blood Pressure Prevention and Control, Laboratory Centre for Disease Control at Health Canada, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 1999Guideline
- Economic evaluation of cholesterol-related interventions in general practice. An appraisal of the evidence.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 1998Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of cardiovascular risk management by practice nurses in primary care.BMC public health · 2013Trial
- Cost effectiveness of nurse led secondary prevention clinics for coronary heart disease in primary care: follow up of a randomised controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Trial
- Factors that influence practice nurses to promote physical activity.British journal of sports medicine · 1997Trial
- Cost effectiveness of health checks. Effect of intervention was sustained.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Trial
- Secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in primary care is cost effective.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Trial
- Families of patients with premature coronary heart disease: an obvious but neglected target for primary prevention.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2007Review
- Genotype-phenotype analysis of the Crohn's disease susceptibility haplotype on chromosome 5q31.Gut · 2003Article
- Cost effectiveness analysis of different approaches of screening for familial hypercholesterolaemia.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2002Article
- The cost-effectiveness of lipid lowering in patients with ischaemic heart disease: an intervention and evaluation in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2000Article
- Simvastatin. A reappraisal of its cost effectiveness in dyslipidaemia and coronary heart disease.PharmacoEconomics · 1997Review
- What can be concluded from the Oxcheck and British family heart studies: commentary on cost effectiveness analyses.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Article
- Costs and cost effectiveness of cardiovascular screening and intervention: the British family heart study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo measure the costs and cost effectiveness of the Oxcheck cardiovascular risk factor screening and intervention programme.
designCost effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial using clinical and economic data taken from the trial.
settingFive general practices in Luton and Dunstable, England. SUBJECTS: 2205 patients who attended a health check in 1989-90 and were scheduled for re-examination in 1992-3 (intervention group); 1916 patients who attended their initial health check in 1992-3 (control group). Participants were men and women aged 35-64 years.
interventionHealth check conducted by nurse, with health education and follow up according to degree of risk.
main outcome measuresCost of health check programme; cost per 1% reduction in coronary risk.
resultsHealth check and follow up cost 29.27 pounds per patient. Estimated programme cost per 1% reduction in coronary risk per participant was between 1.46 pounds and 2.25 pounds; it was nearly twice as much for men as women.
conclusionsThe cost to the practice of implementing Oxcheck-style health checks in an average sized practice of 7500 patients would be 47,000 pounds, a proportion of which could be paid for through staff pay reimbursements and Band Three health promotion target payments. This study highlights the considerable difficulties faced when calculating the costs and benefits of a health promotion programme. Economic evaluations should be integrated into the protocols of randomised controlled trials to enable judgments to be made on the relative cost effectiveness of different prevention strategies.
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.