Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Editorials

Health checks and screening: what works in general practice?

David Mant
British Journal of General Practice 2014; 64 (627): 493-494. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp14X681637
David Mant
University of Oxford, Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford, UK.
Roles: Emeritus Professor of General Practice
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

This article has a correction. Please see:

  • Corrections - December 01, 2014

I know that prevention is better than cure but it’s still the bit of general practice I have always enjoyed least. It’s hard to be motivated by something not happening. It’s easier to be motivated by screening, where the aim is to detect early-stage disease and there is often compelling evidence for the effectiveness of treatment. But GP enthusiasm for prevention has been dampened by ill-conceived NHS policy initiatives since at least 1990.1 Dalton et al 2 are not the first to ask whether NHS Health Checks are defensible when measured against World Health Organization screening criteria.3

MORE EVIDENCE AGAINST HEALTH CHECKS

Enthusiasm for health checks will be further dampened by two other studies in the BJGP. Caley et al 4 reported that they have surprisingly little impact on the recognition of undiagnosed diabetes, hypertension, chronic heart disease, chronic kidney disease, or atrial fibrillation. Koekkoek et al5 point out that the evidence favours targeted stepped interventions, which avoid investing scarce resources in the worried well. And the evidence from all three articles is consistent with the Cochrane meta-analysis which makes it quite clear that promoting health checks in unselected adult patients has limited impact on cardiovascular risk and no significant impact on cardiovascular mortality.6

However, it is important not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Many of the constituent elements of health checks (for example, smoking advice, blood pressure management, and statin prescribing) are trial-proven effective interventions. The studies by Korhonen et al 7 and Gil-Guillen et al, 8 as well as Caley et al, 4 confirm that population screening in primary care can detect undiagnosed cardiovascular risk. So what is going on here? Why is the evidence inconsistent?

WHY IS THE EVIDENCE INCONSISTENT?

The first half of the answer to this question is straightforward. We have known for more than 20 years that those at highest risk of cardiovascular disease are the least likely to attend for health check screening.9 We have known for even longer that identifying risk does nothing but harm if you don’t go on to manage it effectively. Effective management is less likely in programmes that try to deal with multiple rather than individual risks; for example, smoking cessation advice is less effective when given in the context of multifactorial health checks.10

The second half of the answer is more nuanced: context is usually more important than content in determining the effectiveness of a complex intervention so trial evidence is time and context specific. The pioneering North Karelia community-based programme of cardiovascular disease prevention (begun in 1972) provides a good example. The initial trial evidence showed no significant reduction in smoking or weight and a significant reduction in cholesterol only in males and not females.11 The programme was nevertheless rolled out to the rest of Finland and subsequently associated with a fall in coronary mortality of 80%.12

LESSONS FROM STANFORD AND NORTH KARELIA

This is not the only important lesson from North Karelia. The most effective element of the initial intervention was the one in which primary care played the greatest role: a 46% reduction in the number of people with dangerously raised blood pressure (defined as a diastolic blood pressure >100 or systolic blood pressure >175 mmHg).11 However the subsequent fall in mortality has been attributed much more to changes in diet and tobacco use achieved through government legislation, fiscal policy, and mass education rather than personalised intervention; even the major reduction in blood pressure was achieved less by identifying and treating those at very high risk than a shift to the left of the population mean.12 Similarly in the Stanford project in the US (the other major cardiovascular prevention project in the 1970s), the initial impact of personalised care by health practitioners was transient in the context of wider community education and major secular change and was not thought to have had sufficient impact to be included in the main five-cities programme.13

So what can we learn from this historical evidence? Personalised health interventions tend to be swamped by other factors influencing secular trends in health behaviour. This does not mean that GPs should play no role in primary prevention: patients notice that their GP doesn’t smoke and medical opinion as a whole is an important element of the political context, which makes legislative and other changes possible. But it does mean that giving lifestyle advice in primary care is seldom cost effective. We concluded in 1990 that GPs: ‘... should be careful not to absolve the government of its public health obligations by substituting unproved preventive interventions aimed at the individual patient.’9

This is as true now, as we consider how to respond to an epidemic of obesity, as it was when written 24 years ago.

WHEN GOVERNMENTS FAIL

However, governments often don’t act effectively and primary prevention fails. In this situation, we can’t escape from picking up the pieces through secondary prevention. As already cited, the North Karelia project demonstrated that primary care can do this task of secondary prevention very effectively.11 But the key to effective secondary prevention is recognising that case finding and subsequent clinical management are essential but separate components. Both components need to be actively managed and quality-assured. In terms of case finding, Koekkoek et al 5 draw attention to the greater effectiveness of stepped screening programmes, with the first step being identification of patients most likely to benefit from a resource-intensive face-to-face appointment. They also echo Lindenmeyer et al14 in stressing the importance of proactive patient and community engagement to increase the attendance for screening of those at greatest risk. In terms of clinical care, Dalton et al2 imply that when risk factors such as hypertension or hypergylycaemia are identified by screening we have a responsibility to manage them with the same attention and quality control as premorbid conditions identified in other national screening programmes such as breast cancer.

Lindenmeyer et al 14 give a practical example. One important reason for diabetic case finding is that blindness from micro-vascular complications is preventable. Diabetic retinopathy screening uptake apparently varies between practices from 55% to 95%. Although three contributory factors are beyond our control (social deprivation, ethnic diversity, and transport access), GPs can substantially improve screening uptake by contacting patients and encouraging them to attend, integrating screening with routine care, and facilitating good communication with regional screening teams. Preventing blindness seems a particularly compelling argument for action but these commonsense observations must apply to most other national screening activities, all of which are supported by trial evidence of their effectiveness. They also apply to vaccination. The variation in vaccine uptake between practices, and the key role GPs can and should play in maximising compliance, has been discussed in this journal many times before, most recently in the context of influenza vaccination for at-risk children.15

SO WHAT WORKS?

So to return to the title — what works in general practice? The answer is simple: secondary prevention. Secondary prevention certainly includes identification and management of patients with high blood pressure, high blood sugar, hyperlipidaemia, or renal insufficiency. It also includes advising people to stop smoking (it’s secondary prevention because it’s only necessary when failure of primary prevention means people start smoking in the first place). And in each case, it involves case finding, but not through NHS Health Checks. This NHS preventive flagship merits scuttling because it’s unfit for purpose. It’s inefficient at case finding, strays into primary prevention, and lacks an adequate quality-assurance mechanism to ensure subsequent treatment is effective.

In designing a better programme we should give thought to the damage we have caused by unnecessarily medicalising another important NHS prevention programme: the provision of contraception. Not everyone has the ability and motivation to self-care, but surely we should not only be involving patients in self-recognition of risk but should also be delegating to them as much responsibility as possible for its subsequent management. Patient self-monitoring may not only be more convenient for them, it may also be more effective.16 And ‘fire and forget’ may sometimes be a more efficient and cost-effective prescribing strategy than ongoing clinician monitoring in primary care. So let’s look forward to moving from health-checks to facilitated self-checks; and for cardiovascular disease, to a more targeted, quality-assured, and evidence-aware programme.

Notes

Provenance

Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2014

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Mant D,
    2. Fowler G
    (1990) Urine analysis for glucose and protein: are the requirements of the new contract sensible? BMJ 300:1053–1055.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Dalton ARH,
    2. Marshall T,
    3. McManus RJ
    (2014) The NHS health check programme: a comparison against established standards for screening. Br J Gen Pract doi:10.3399/bjgp14X681997.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Mant D,
    2. Fowler G
    (1990) Mass screening: theory and ethics. BMJ 300:916–918.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Caley M,
    2. Chohan P,
    3. Hooper J,
    4. Wright N
    (2014) The impact of NHS health checks on the prevalence of disease in general practices: a controlled study. Br J Gen Pract doi:10.3399/bjgp14X681013.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Koekkoek PS,
    2. Engelsen CD,
    3. Godefrooij MB,
    4. et al.
    (2014) Screening for an increased cardiometabolic risk in primary care: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract doi:10.3399/bjgp14X681781.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. 6.↵
    1. Ebrahim S,
    2. Taylor F,
    3. Ward K,
    4. et al.
    (2011) Multiple risk factor interventions for primary prevention of coronary heart disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 19(1):CD001561.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Korhonen PE,
    2. Kautiainen H,
    3. Mäntyselkä P
    (2014) Screening for cardiovascular risk factors and self-rated health in a community setting: a cross-sectional study in Finland. Br J Gen Pract doi:10.3399/bjgp14X681769.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Gil-Guillen V,
    2. Hermida E,
    3. Pita-Fernandez S,
    4. et al.
    (2014) Effects of a cardiovascular educational intervention for primary care professionals in Spain. Br J Gen Pract, in press.
  9. 9.↵
    1. Waller D,
    2. Agass M,
    3. Mant D,
    4. et al.
    (1990) Health checks in general practice: another example of inverse care. BMJ 300:1115–1118.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Rice VH,
    2. Hartmann-Boyce J,
    3. Stead LF
    (2013) Nursing interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12(8):CD001188.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    1. Puska P,
    2. Tuomilehto J,
    3. Salonen J,
    4. et al.
    (1979) Changes in coronary risk factors during comprehensive five-year community programme to control cardiovascular diseases (North Karelia project). BMJ 10:1173–1178, 2(6199).
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    1. Vartiainen E,
    2. Laatikainen T,
    3. Peltonen M,
    4. et al.
    (2010) Thirty-five-year trends in cardiovascular risk factors in Finland. Int J Epid 39:504–518.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Farquhar JW,
    2. Maccoby N,
    3. Wood PD,
    4. et al.
    (1977) Community education for cardiovascular health. Lancet 1(8023):1192–1195.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Lindenmeyer A,
    2. Sturt JA,
    3. Hipwell A,
    4. et al.
    (2014) Influence of primary care practices on patients’ uptake of diabetic retinopathy screening: a qualitative case study. Br J Gen Pract doi:10.3399/bjgp14X680965.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Sampson R,
    2. Wong L,
    3. Macvicar R
    (2011) Parental reasons for non-uptake of influenza vaccination in young at-risk groups: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract doi:10.3399/bjgp11X583155.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Heneghan C,
    2. Alonso-Coello P,
    3. Garcia-Alamino JM,
    4. et al.
    (2006) Self-monitoring of oral anticoagulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 367(9508):404–411.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 64 (627)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 64, Issue 627
October 2014
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Health checks and screening: what works in general practice?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Health checks and screening: what works in general practice?
David Mant
British Journal of General Practice 2014; 64 (627): 493-494. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp14X681637

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Health checks and screening: what works in general practice?
David Mant
British Journal of General Practice 2014; 64 (627): 493-494. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp14X681637
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • MORE EVIDENCE AGAINST HEALTH CHECKS
    • WHY IS THE EVIDENCE INCONSISTENT?
    • LESSONS FROM STANFORD AND NORTH KARELIA
    • WHEN GOVERNMENTS FAIL
    • SO WHAT WORKS?
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Long COVID in children and young people: uncertainty and contradictions
  • Overcoming barriers to autistic health care: towards autism-friendly practices
  • Childhood eczema: paths to optimisation of management
Show more Editorials

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2022 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242