Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
      • Programme
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Blog
    • eLetters
    • Feedback
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Blog
    • eLetters
    • Feedback
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
Research

Delivery and impact of the NHS Health Check in the first 8 years: a systematic review

Adam Martin, Catherine L Saunders, Emma Harte, Simon J Griffin, Calum MacLure, Jonathan Mant, Catherine Meads, Fiona M Walter and Juliet A Usher-Smith
Br J Gen Pract 2018; 68 (672): e449-e459. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp18X697649
Adam Martin
Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, and RAND Europe, Cambridge.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Catherine L Saunders
Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, and RAND Europe, Cambridge.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Emma Harte
RAND Europe, Cambridge.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Simon J Griffin
Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, and Medical Research Council (MRC) Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Calum MacLure
RAND Europe, Cambridge.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jonathan Mant
Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Catherine Meads
RAND Europe, and Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fiona M Walter
Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Juliet A Usher-Smith
Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Published eLetters

eLetter submission guidelines

Submit a Response to This Article
Compose eLetter

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
1 + 13 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

  • Delivery and impact of the NHS Health Check in the first 8 years: a systematic review
    Christopher E. Clark, Ben Norris, A Jayne Fordham, Maria R. Greenwood, Suzanne H. Richards and John L. Campbell
    Published on: 24 July 2018
  • Delivery and impact of the NHS Health Check
    Nicholas Summerton
    Published on: 05 July 2018
  • Published on: (24 July 2018)
    Delivery and impact of the NHS Health Check in the first 8 years: a systematic review
    • Christopher E. Clark, Senior Clinical Lecturer in Primary Care, University of Exeter Medical School
    • Other Contributors:
      • Ben Norris, Foundation Doctor, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust
      • A Jayne Fordham, Practice nurse, Mid Devon Medical Practice
      • Maria R. Greenwood, Practice nurse, Mid Devon Medical Practice
      • Suzanne H. Richards, Professor of Primary Care Research, Leeds Institute of Health Research
      • John L. Campbell, Professor of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Exeter Medical School
    With reference to the systematic review by Martin et al,1 we report our own experience over two years of NHS Health Checks in one practice. We invited 636 patients (35% of eligible list) and 340 attended (53% uptake (95% CI 50 to 57)).2 We too found attenders to be older (mean 3 years) than non-attenders, more likely to be female, and have higher HDL cholesterol levels and lower total cholesterol: HDL ratios. Non-attenders had twice the smoking rate of attenders (18% vs. 9%).
     
    We followed up 94/340 (28%) of attendees for findings outside of target, most commonly blood pressure (BP) >140/90 (79; 23%). Ultimately, new diagnoses of hypertension were made for 14 (4%) attenders, diabetes mellitus for 7 (2%) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 3 for 5 (1%). This low yield has previously been reported,3 and questions the cost effectiveness of this intervention.4
     
    Regarding the 79 people followed-up for a BP >140/90, 76 (96%) already had a BP entry in their records (pre-dating the Health Check) above 140/90 but without a diagnosis of hypertension. We estimated costs per Health Check using published data,5 and derived costs per new diagnosis of hypertension. Within the Health Check Programme these were £1083.73 (95% CI £686.57 to £2132.63). An alternative targeted approach to BP checks, inviting attendance based on existing records of eleva...
    Show More
    With reference to the systematic review by Martin et al,1 we report our own experience over two years of NHS Health Checks in one practice. We invited 636 patients (35% of eligible list) and 340 attended (53% uptake (95% CI 50 to 57)).2 We too found attenders to be older (mean 3 years) than non-attenders, more likely to be female, and have higher HDL cholesterol levels and lower total cholesterol: HDL ratios. Non-attenders had twice the smoking rate of attenders (18% vs. 9%).
     
    We followed up 94/340 (28%) of attendees for findings outside of target, most commonly blood pressure (BP) >140/90 (79; 23%). Ultimately, new diagnoses of hypertension were made for 14 (4%) attenders, diabetes mellitus for 7 (2%) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 3 for 5 (1%). This low yield has previously been reported,3 and questions the cost effectiveness of this intervention.4
     
    Regarding the 79 people followed-up for a BP >140/90, 76 (96%) already had a BP entry in their records (pre-dating the Health Check) above 140/90 but without a diagnosis of hypertension. We estimated costs per Health Check using published data,5 and derived costs per new diagnosis of hypertension. Within the Health Check Programme these were £1083.73 (95% CI £686.57 to £2132.63). An alternative targeted approach to BP checks, inviting attendance based on existing records of elevated blood pressure, would have invited 113 (33%) of those attending for Health Checks and still identified 12/14 (86%) of the new cases of hypertension at a cost of between £188.70 and £274.51. This approach would also have detected 4/5 (80%) of our new CKD cases
     
    Given the limited evidence for impact, and substantial costs of the NHS Health Checks we propose that an alternative approach targeting those with pre-exiting risk markers, and therefore the most to gain from assessment and intervention, should be evaluated against the current universal model for effectiveness and cost effectiveness.
     
    References

    1. Martin A, Saunders CL, Harte E, et al. Delivery and impact of the NHS Health Check in the first 8 years: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract 2018;68(672):e449-e459.
    2. Clark CE, Fordham J, Greenwood M, Richards S, Campbell JL. Costs of hypertension detection within the NHS health check programme compared to opportunistic detection. J Hypertens 2014;32(e-Supplement-1):e44.
    3. Robson J, Dostal I, Sheikh A, et al. The NHS Health Check in England: an evaluation of the first 4 years. BMJ Open 2016;6(1).
    4. MacAuley D. The value of conducting periodic health checks. BMJ 2012;345.
    5. Curtis L. Unit costs of health and social care. Canterbury: PSSRU; 2013.

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (5 July 2018)
    Delivery and impact of the NHS Health Check
    • Nicholas Summerton, GP, East Yorkshire, Unaffiliated - locum

    Martin and colleagues must be congratulated for their hard work in seeking to assess the delivery and impact of the NHS Health Check programme.1 However, although they have identified some positive outcomes from the programme these are, at best, marginal.

    But I would not to wish to see the initiative dropped as, unlike the various national NHS Screening Programmes, it promotes a much more patient-centred and risk-oriented approach. Coverage is also higher among older people and those living in the most deprived areas. What is needed now is a careful re-assessment of the programme in order to seek to deliver better value.

    Based on my own review2 I would argue that the current exclusions are too broad and the scope is too narrow. For example, individuals on treatments for high blood pressure or elevated cholesterol should also be checked. Moreover, bowel cancer screening (using FIT) or diabetes risk assessment (using HbA1c) are additional areas to consider alongside the current cardiovascular focus.

    References

    1. Martin A, Saunders CL, Harte E, et al. Delivery and impact of the NHS Health Check in the first 8 years: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract 2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp18X697649.

    2. Summerton N. Better value health checks: a practical guide. London: CRC Press, 2018.

    Competing Interests: None declared.
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 68 (672)
Br J Gen Pract
Vol. 68, Issue 672
July 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
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.
Delivery and impact of the NHS Health Check in the first 8 years: a systematic review
(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.
Citation Tools
Delivery and impact of the NHS Health Check in the first 8 years: a systematic review
Adam Martin, Catherine L Saunders, Emma Harte, Simon J Griffin, Calum MacLure, Jonathan Mant, Catherine Meads, Fiona M Walter, Juliet A Usher-Smith
Br J Gen Pract 2018; 68 (672): e449-e459. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp18X697649

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
Delivery and impact of the NHS Health Check in the first 8 years: a systematic review
Adam Martin, Catherine L Saunders, Emma Harte, Simon J Griffin, Calum MacLure, Jonathan Mant, Catherine Meads, Fiona M Walter, Juliet A Usher-Smith
Br J Gen Pract 2018; 68 (672): e449-e459. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp18X697649
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
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHOD
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • coverage
  • general practice
  • impact
  • NHS Health Check
  • primary care
  • systematic review
  • uptake

More in this TOC Section

  • Access to primary health care for asylum seekers and refugees: a qualitative study of service user experiences in the UK
  • Management of depression and referral of older people to psychological therapies: a systematic review of qualitative studies
  • Efficiency versus thoroughness in medication review: a qualitative interview study in UK primary care
Show more Research

Related Articles

Cited By...

 

Influenza in the elderly

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
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

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 Blog
  • 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
© 2019 British Journal of General Practice

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