Estimating the yield of NHS Health Checks in England: a population-based cohort study

What happens after an NHS Health Check? A survey and realist review

Background

The National Health Service Health Check in England aims to provide adults aged 40 to 74 with an assessment of their risk of developing cardiovascular disease and to offer advice to help manage and reduce this risk. The programme is commissioned by local authorities and delivered by a range of providers in different settings, although primarily in general practices. This project focused on variation in the advice, onward referrals and prescriptions offered to attendees following their health check.

Objectives

(1) Map recent programme delivery across England via a survey of local authorities; (2) conduct a realist review to enable understanding of how the National Health Service Health Check programme works in different settings, for different groups; (3) provide recommendations to improve delivery.

Design

Survey of local authorities and realist review of the literature.

Review methods

Realist review is a theory-driven, interpretive approach to evidence synthesis that seeks to explain why, when and for whom outcomes occur. We gathered published research and grey literature (including local evaluation documents and conference materials) via searching and supplementary methods. Extracted data were synthesised using a realist logic of analysis to develop an understanding of important contexts that affect the delivery of National Health Service Health Checks, and underlying mechanisms that produce outcomes related to our project focus.

Results

Our findings highlight the variation in National Health Service Health Check delivery models across England. Commissioners, providers and attendees understand the programme's purpose in different ways. When understood primarily as an opportunity to screen for disease, responsibility for delivery and outcomes rests with primary care, and there is an emphasis on volume of checks delivered, gathering essential data and communicating risk. When understood as an opportunity to prompt and support behaviour change, more emphasis is placed on delivery of advice and referrals to 'lifestyle services'. Practical constraints limit what can be delivered within the programme's remit. Public health funding restricts delivery options and links with onward services, while providers may struggle to deliver effective checks when faced with competing priorities. Attendees' responses to the programme are affected by features of delivery models and the constraints they face within their own lives.

Limitations

Survey response rate lower than anticipated; review findings limited by the availability and quality of the literature.

Conclusions and implications

The purpose and remit of the National Health Service Health Check programme should be clarified, considering prevailing attitudes about its value (especially among providers) and what can be delivered within existing resources. Some variation in delivery is likely to be appropriate to meet local population needs, but lack of clarity for the programme contributes to a 'postcode lottery' effect in the support offered to attendees after a check. Our findings raise important questions about whether the programme itself and services that it may feed into are adequately resourced to achieve positive outcomes for attendees, and whether current delivery models may produce inequitable outcomes.

Future work

Policy-makers and commissioners should consider the implications of the findings of this project; future research should address the relative scarcity of studies focused on the end of the National Health Service Health Check pathway.

Study registration

PROSPERO registration CRD42020163822.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme (NIHR129209).

Evaluating the clinical effectiveness of the NHS Health Check programme: a prospective analysis in the Genetics and Vascular Health Check (GENVASC) study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to assess the clinical effectiveness of the national cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention programme-National Health Service Health Check (NHSHC) in reduction of CVD risk.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

147 primary care practices in Leicestershire and Northamptonshire in England, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

27 888 individuals undergoing NHSHC with a minimum of 18 months of follow-up data.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes were NHSHC attributed detection of CVD risk factors, prescription of medications, changes in values of individual risk factors and frequency of follow-up.

RESULTS

At recruitment, 18% of participants had high CVD risk (10%-20% 10-year risk) and 4% very high CVD risk (>20% 10-year risk). New diagnoses or hypertension (HTN) was made in 2.3% participants, hypercholesterolaemia in 0.25% and diabetes mellitus in 0.9%. New prescription of stains and antihypertensive medications was observed in 5.4% and 5.4% of participants, respectively. Total cholesterol was decreased on average by 0.38 mmol/L (95% CI -0.34 to -0.41) and 1.71 mmol/L (-1.48 to -1.94) in patients with initial cholesterol >5 mmol/L and >7.5 mmol/L, respectively. Systolic blood pressure was decreased on average by 2.9 mm Hg (-2.3 to -3.7), 15.7 mm Hg (-14.1 to -17.5) and 33.4 mm Hg (-29.4 to -37.7), in patients with grade 1, 2 and 3 HTN, respectively. About one out of three patients with increased CVD risk had no record of follow-up or treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Majority of patients identified with increased CVD risk through the NHSHC were followed up and received effective clinical interventions. However, one-third of high CVD risk patients had no follow-up and therefore did not receive any treatment. Our study highlights areas of focus which could improve the effectiveness of the programme.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04417387.

Australian children's foot, ankle and leg problems in primary care: a secondary analysis of the Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health (BEACH) data

OBJECTIVES

To explore children's foot, ankle and leg consultation patterns and management practices in Australian primary care.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional, retrospective study.

SETTING

Australia Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health program dataset.

PARTICIPANTS

Data were extracted for general practitioners (GPs) and patients <18 years from April 2000 to March 2016 inclusive.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Demographic characteristics: sex, GP age groups (ie, <45, 45-54, 55+ years), GP country of training, patient age grouping (0-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-18 years), postcode, concession card status, indigenous status, up to three patient encounter reasons, up to four encounter problems/diagnoses and the clinical management actioned by the GP.

RESULTS

Children's foot, ankle or leg problems were managed at a rate of 2.05 (95% CI 1.99 to 2.11) per 100 encounters during 229 137 GP encounters with children. There was a significant increase in the rate of foot, ankle and leg problems managed per 100 children in the population, from 6.1 (95% CI 5.3 to 6.8) in 2005-2006 to 9.0 (95% CI 7.9 to 10.1) in 2015-2016. Management of children's foot, ankle and leg problems were independently associated with male patients (30% more than female), older children (15-18 years were 7.1 times more than <1 years), male GPs (13% more) and younger GPs (<45 years of age 13% more than 55+). The top four most frequently managed problems were injuries (755.9 per 100 000 encounters), infections (458.2), dermatological conditions (299.4) and unspecified pain (176.3). The most frequently managed problems differed according to age grouping.

CONCLUSIONS

Children commonly present to GPs for foot, ankle and leg problems. Presentation frequencies varied according to age. Unexpectedly, conditions presenting commonly in adults, but rarely in children, were also frequently recorded. This data highlights the importance of initiatives supporting contemporary primary care knowledge of diagnoses and management of paediatric lower limb problems to minimise childhood burden of disease.

NHS Health Checks: an observational study of equity and outcomes 2009-2017

Background

The NHS Health Check cardiovascular prevention programme is now 10 years old.

Aim

To describe NHS Heath Check attendance, new diagnoses, and treatment in relation to equity indicators.

Design and setting

A nationally representative database derived from 1500 general practices from 2009–2017.

Method

The authors compared NHS Health Check attendance and new diagnoses and treatments by age, sex, ethnic group, and deprivation.

Results

In 2013–2017, 590 218 (16.9%) eligible people aged 40–74 years attended an NHS Health Check and 2 902 598 (83.1%) did not attend. South Asian ethnic groups were most likely to attend compared to others, and females more than males. New diagnoses were more likely in attendees than non-attendees: hypertension 25/1000 in attendees versus 9/1000 in non-attendees; type 2 diabetes 8/1000 versus 3/1000; and chronic kidney disease (CKD) 7/1000 versus 4/1000. In people aged ≥65 years, atrial fibrillation was newly diagnosed in 5/1000 attendees and 3/1000 non-attendees, and for dementia 2/1000 versus 1/1000, respectively. Type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and CKD were more likely in more deprived groups, and in South Asian, Black African, and Black Caribbean ethnic groups. Attendees were more likely to be prescribed statins (26/1000) than non-attendees (8/1000), and antihypertensive medicines (25/1000 versus 13/1000 non-attendees). However, of the 117 963 people with ≥10% CVD risk who were eligible for statins, only 9785 (8.3%) were prescribed them.

Conclusion

Uptake of NHS Health Checks remains low. Attendees were more likely than non-attendees to be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and CKD, and to receive treatment with statins and antihypertensives. Most attendees received neither treatment nor referral. Of those eligible for statins, <10% were treated. Policy reviews should consider a targeted approach prioritising those at highest CVD risk for face-to-face contact and consider other options for those at lower CVD risk.

Uptake and detection rate of a stepwise cardiometabolic disease detection program in primary care-a cohort study

Background

Early detection and treatment of cardiometabolic diseases (CMD) in high-risk patients is a promising preventive strategy to anticipate the increasing burden of CMD. The Dutch guideline ‘the prevention consultation’ provides a framework for stepwise CMD risk assessment and detection in primary care. The aim of this study was to assess the outcome of this program in terms of newly diagnosed CMD.

Methods

A cohort study among 30 934 patients, aged 45–70 years without known CMD or CMD risk factors, who were invited for the CMD detection program within 37 general practices. Patients filled out a CMD risk score (step 1), were referred for additional risk profiling in case of high risk (step 2) and received lifestyle advice and (pharmacological) treatment if indicated (step 3). During 1-year follow-up newly diagnosed CMD, prescriptions and abnormal diagnostic tests were assessed.

Results

Twelve thousand seven hundred and thirty-eight patients filled out the risk score of which 865, 6665 and 5208 had a low, intermediate and high CMD risk, respectively. One thousand seven hundred and fifty-five high-risk patients consulted the general practitioner, in 346 of whom a new CMD was diagnosed. In an additional 422 patients a new prescription and/or abnormal diagnostic test were found.

Conclusions

Implementation of the CMD detection program resulted in a new CMD diagnosis in one-fifth of high-risk patients who attended the practice for completion of their risk profile. However, the potential yield of the program could be higher given the considerable number of additional risk factors—such as elevated glucose, blood pressure and cholesterol levels—found, requiring active follow-up and presumably treatment in the future.

Sex Differences in Cardiovascular Medication Prescription in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Sex differences in the management of cardiovascular disease have been reported in secondary care. We conducted a systematic review with meta‐analysis of systematically investigated sex differences in cardiovascular medication prescription among patients at high risk or with established cardiovascular disease in primary care.

Methods and Results

PubMed and Embase were searched between 2000 and 2019 for observational studies reporting on the sex‐specific prevalence of aspirin, statins, and antihypertensive medication prescription, including beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors, and diuretics, in primary care. Random effects meta‐analysis was used to obtain pooled women‐to‐men prevalence ratios for each cardiovascular medication prescription. Metaregression models assessed the impact of age and year on the findings. A total of 43 studies were included, involving 2 264 600 participants (28% women) worldwide. Participants’ mean age ranged from 51 to 76 years. The pooled prevalence of cardiovascular medication prescription for women was 41% for aspirin, 60% for statins, and 68% for any antihypertensive medications. Corresponding rates for men were 56%, 63%, and 69% respectively. The pooled women‐to‐men prevalence ratios were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.72–0.92) for aspirin, 0.90 (95% CI, 0.85–0.95) for statins, and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.95–1.08) for any antihypertensive medications. Women were less likely to be prescribed angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors (0.85; 95% CI, 0.81–0.89) but more likely with diuretics (1.27; 95% CI, 1.17–1.37). Mean age, mean age difference between the sexes, and year of study had no significant impact on findings.

Conclusions

Sex differences in the prescription of cardiovascular medication exist among patients at high risk or with established cardiovascular disease in primary care, with a lower prevalence of aspirin, statins, and angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors prescription in women and a lower prevalence of diuretics prescription in men.

Middle-aged Health Checks Program Outputs in Non-communicable Diseases Screening in Iran

Background

The aim of the present study is identifying the outputs of middle-aged health checks program (MAHCP) in Isfahan province in central of Islamic Republic of Iran.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional study. During 30 months, from March 2014 to September 2016, 30-59 years old females and males were screened for abdominal obesity, overweight, obesity, physical inactivity, dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, and also breast, skin, cervix, colorectal, and prostate cancers in all health houses, health posts, and health centers in the province. Based on the data bank of the family health office of the health center of Isfahan province, we estimated the outputs of MAHCP.

Results

The utilization rate of MAHCP was 0.39-273.06 per 1000 middle-aged population (MAP). The utilization rate in 2015 was higher for women (43.02-273.06 per 1000 MAP), particularly in rural areas (273.06 per 1000 MAP). The case detection rate of physical inactivity was 26.40-498.6, abdominal obesity was 16.50-428.38, overweight was 38.73-365.59, obesity was 3.30-261.99, and body mass index (BMI) ≥25 was 63.21-593.41 per 1000 MAP. Also dyslipidemia was 21.51-171.62, hypertension was12.33-53.88, and diabetes mellitus was 10.71 - 36.99 per 1000 MAP. Cancers detection rate in women included: breast cancers (99.52-330.32), skin (14.24-245.52), cervix (11.94-87.43), and colorectal (0-47.4) per 100,000 MAP. Cancer detection rate in men included: skin (0-59.18), colorectal (0-80.06), and prostate (0-42.03) per 100,000 MAP.

Conclusions

The MAHCP utilization rate in both the genders, particularly in men, was lower than it had been expected.

Health checks and cardiovascular risk factor values over six years' follow-up: Matched cohort study using electronic health records in England

BACKGROUND

The National Health Service (NHS) in England introduced a population-wide programme for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention in 2009, known as NHS Health Checks. This research aimed to measure the cardiovascular risk management and cardiovascular risk factor outcomes of the health check programme during six years' follow-up.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

A controlled interrupted time series study was conducted. Participants were registered with general practices in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) in England and received health checks between 1 April 2010 and 31 December 2013. Control participants, who did not receive a health check, were matched for age, sex, and general practice. Outcomes were blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), smoking, and total cholesterol (TC) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL). Analyses estimated the net effect of health check by year, allowing for the underlying trend in risk factor values and baseline differences between cases and controls, adjusting for age, sex, deprivation, and clustering by general practice. There were 127,891 health check participants and 322,910 matched controls. Compared with controls, health check participants had lower BMI (cases mean 27.0, SD 4.8; controls 27.3, SD 5.6, Kg/m2), systolic blood pressure (SBP) (cases 129.0, SD 14.3; controls 129.3, SD 15.0, mm Hg), and smoking (21% in health check participants versus 27% in controls), but total and HDL cholesterol were similar. Health check participants were more likely to receive weight management advice (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 5.03, 4.98 to 5.08, P < 0.001), smoking cessation interventions (HR 3.20, 3.13 to 3.27, P < 0.001), or statins (HR 1.24, 1.21 to 1.27, P < 0.001). There were net reductions in risk factor values up to six years after the check for BMI (-0.30, -0.39 to -0.20 Kg/m2, P < 0.001), SBP (-1.43, -1.70 to -1.16 mm Hg, P < 0.001), and smoking (17% in health check participants versus 25% in controls; odds ratio 0.90, 0.87 to 0.94, P < 0.001). The main study limitation was that residual confounding may be present because randomisation was not employed; health check-associated measurement introduced differential recording that might cause bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that people who take up a health check generally have lower risk factor values than controls and are more likely to receive risk factor interventions. Risk factor values show net reductions up to six years following a health check in BMI, blood pressure, and smoking, which may be of public health importance.

Using out-of-office blood pressure measurements in established cardiovascular risk scores: a secondary analysis of data from two blood pressure monitoring studies

BACKGROUND

Blood pressure (BP) measurement is increasingly carried out through home or ambulatory monitoring, yet existing cardiovascular risk scores were developed for use with measurements obtained in clinics.

AIM

To describe differences in cardiovascular risk estimates obtained using ambulatory or home BP measurements instead of clinic readings.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Secondary analysis of data from adults aged 25-84 years in the UK and the Netherlands without prior history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in two BP monitoring studies: the Blood Pressure in different Ethnic groups (BP-Eth) study and the Home versus Office blood pressure MEasurements: Reduction of Unnecessary treatment Study (HOMERUS).

METHOD

The primary comparison was Framingham risk calculated using BP measured as in the Framingham study or daytime ambulatory BP measurements. Statistical significance was determined using non-parametric tests.

RESULTS

In 442 BP-Eth patients (mean age = 58 years, 50% female [n = 222]) the median absolute difference in 10-year Framingham cardiovascular risk calculated using BP measured as in the Framingham study or daytime ambulatory BP measurements was 1.84% (interquartile range [IQR] 0.65-3.63, P = 0.67). In 165 HOMERUS patients (mean age = 56 years, 46% female) the median absolute difference in 10-year risk for daytime ambulatory BP was 2.76% (IQR 1.19-6.39, P<0.001) and only 8 out of 165 (4.8%) of patients were reclassified.

CONCLUSION

Estimates of cardiovascular risk are similar when calculated using BP measurements obtained as in the risk score derivation study or through ambulatory monitoring. Further research is required to determine if differences in estimated risk would meaningfully influence risk score accuracy.

Limitations for health research with restricted data collection from UK primary care

Purpose

UK primary care provides a rich data source for research. The impact of proposed data collection restrictions is unknown. This study aimed to assess the impact of restricting the scope of electronic health record (EHR) data collection on the ability to conduct research. The study estimated the consequences of restricted data collection on published Clinical Practice Research Datalink studies from high impact journals or referenced in clinical guidelines.

Methods

A structured form was used to systematically analyse the extent to which individual studies would have been possible using a database with data collection restrictions in place: (1) retrospective collection of specified diseases only; (2) retrospective collection restricted to a 6‐ or 12‐year period; (3) prospective and retrospective collection restricted to non‐sensitive data. Outcomes were categorised as unfeasible (not reproducible without major bias); compromised (feasible with design modification); or unaffected.

Results

Overall, 91% studies were compromised with all restrictions in place; 56% studies were unfeasible even with design modification. With restrictions on diseases alone, 74% studies were compromised; 51% were unfeasible. Restricting collection to 6/12 years had a major impact, with 67 and 22% of studies compromised, respectively. Restricting collection of sensitive data had a lesser but marked impact with 10% studies compromised.

Conclusion

EHR data collection restrictions can profoundly reduce the capacity for public health research that underpins evidence‐based medicine and clinical guidance. National initiatives seeking to collect EHRs should consider the implications of restricting data collection on the ability to address vital public health questions.

Statin use in cancer survivors versus the general population: cohort study using primary care data from the UK clinical practice research datalink

BACKGROUND

Cancer survivors may be at increased risk of cardiovascular diseases, but little is known about whether prescribing guidelines for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease are adequately implemented in these patients. We compared levels of statin initiation and cessation among cancer survivors compared to the general population to determine differences in uptake of pharmaceutical cardiovascular risk prevention measures in these groups.

METHODS

The study population included individuals aged ≥40 during 2005-13 within the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink primary care database. Within this population we identified cancer survivors who were alive and under follow-up at least 1 year after diagnosis, and controls with no cancer history. Follow-up time prior to cancer diagnosis was included in the control cohort. Using logistic regression, we compared these groups with respect to uptake of statins within 1 month of a first high recorded cardiovascular risk score. Then, we used Cox modelling to compare persistence on statin therapy (time to statin cessation) between cancer survivors and controls from the main study population who had initiated on a statin.

RESULTS

Among 4202 cancer survivors and 113,035 controls with a record indicating a high cardiovascular risk score, 23.0% and 23.5% respectively initiated a statin within 1 month (adjusted odds ratio 0.98 [91.8-1.05], p = 0.626). Cancer survivors appeared more likely to discontinue statin treatment than controls (adjusted hazard ratio 1.07 [1.01-1.12], p = 0.02). This greater risk of discontinuing was only evident after the first year of therapy (p-interaction < 0.001).

INTERPRETATION

Although cardiovascular risk is thought to be higher in cancer survivors compared to the general population, cancer survivors were no more likely to receive statins, and marginally more likely to cease long-term therapy, than general population controls. There may be an opportunity to mitigate the suspected higher cardiovascular risk in the growing population of cancer survivors by improving uptake of lipid-lowering treatment and persistence on therapy.

Impact of the NHS Health Check on inequalities in cardiovascular disease risk: a difference-in-differences matching analysis

BACKGROUND

We assessed impacts of a large, nationwide cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment and management programme on sociodemographic group inequalities in (1) early identification of hypertension, type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic kidney disease (CKD); and (2) management of global CVD risk among high-risk individuals.

METHODS

We obtained retrospective electronic medical records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink for a randomly selected sample of 138 788 patients aged 40-74 years without known CVD or diabetes, who were registered with 462 practices between 2009 and 2013. We estimated programme impact using a difference-in-differences matching analysis that compared changes in outcome over time between attendees and non-attendees.

RESULTS

National Health Service Health Check attendance was 21.4% (29 672/138 788). A significantly greater number of hypertension and T2D incident cases were identified in men than women (eg, an additional 4.02%, 95% CI 3.65% to 4.39%, and 2.08%, 1.81% to 2.35% cases of hypertension in men and women, respectively). A significantly greater number of T2D incident cases were identified among attendees living in the most deprived areas, but no differences were found for hypertension and CKD across socioeconomic groups. No major differences in CVD risk management were observed between sociodemographic subgroups (eg, programme impact on 10-year CVD risk score was -1.13%, -1.48% to -0.78% in male and -1.53%, -2.36% to -0.71% in female attendees).

CONCLUSION

During 2009-2013, the programme had low attendance and small overall impacts on early identification of disease and risk management. The age, sex and socioeconomic subgroups appeared to have derived similar level of benefits, leaving existing inequalities unchanged. These findings highlight the importance of population-wide interventions to address inequalities in CVD outcomes.

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

BACKGROUND

Since 2009, all eligible persons in England have been entitled to an NHS Health Check. Uncertainty remains about who attends, and the health-related impacts.

AIM

To review quantitative evidence on coverage (the proportion of eligible individuals who attend), uptake (proportion of invitees who attend), and impact of NHS Health Checks.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic review and quantitative data synthesis. Included were studies or data reporting coverage or uptake and studies reporting any health-related impact that used an appropriate comparison group or before- and-after study design.

METHOD

Eleven databases and additional internet sources were searched to November 2016.

RESULTS

Twenty-six observational studies and one additional dataset were included. Since 2013, 45.6% of eligible individuals have received a health check. Coverage is higher among older people, those with a family history of coronary heart disease, those living in the most deprived areas, and some ethnic minority groups. Just under half (48.2%) of those invited have taken up the invitation. Data on uptake and impact (especially regarding health-related behaviours) are limited. Uptake is higher in older people and females, but lower in those living in the most deprived areas. Attendance is associated with small increases in disease detection, decreases in modelled cardiovascular disease risk, and increased statin and antihypertensive prescribing.

CONCLUSION

Published attendance, uptake, and prescribing rates are all lower than originally anticipated, and data on impact are limited, with very few studies reporting the effect of attendance on health-related behaviours. High-quality studies comparing matched attendees and non-attendees and health economic analyses are required.

Status of hypertension screening in the Korea National General Health Screening Program: a questionnaire survey on 210 screening centers in two metropolitan areas

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this survey was to evaluate the performance of hypertension screening in medical institutions conducting the national general health screening program of the Republic of Korea.

METHODS

We contacted 700 medical institutions of Seoul and Incheon areas which performed the national general health screening program in 2016, and 210 of them completed telephone survey. The questions asked in the survey include equipment, environment, personnel and quality control procedures for blood pressure (BP) measurement, and interpretation of the measurements.

RESULTS

A majority of the responding screening centers used oscilloscope sphygmomanometers (51.9%), had only one-sized cuff (65.2%), and measured BP in open space (54.3%). BP levels were measured mainly by nurses (62.0%) and doctors (25.0%), after a 1 to10 minutes (84.9%) of resting period. A 75.2% of screening centers regularly calibrated sphygmomanometers, 81.4% had a manual for BP measurement, and 59.0% had a training program. A 80.0% of respondents answered that they used averages of multiple BP measurements to determine an individual's BP level, and 82.9% answered that criteria for hypertension was systolic BP ≥140 mmHg and/or diastolic BP ≥ 90 mmHg. If a screening finds an individual with hypertension, 82.9% of centers recommend revisiting for a second BP measurement rather than start medication immediately.

CONCLUSION

In most medical institutions performing general health screening program, certified medical personnel measure BP and interpret the results according to established protocols. However, there is room for improvement in the equipment, environment and quality control procedures for BP measurement.

Views of commissioners, managers and healthcare professionals on the NHS Health Check programme: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise data concerning the views of commissioners, managers and healthcare professionals towards the National Health Service (NHS) Health Check programme in general and the challenges faced when implementing it in practice.

DESIGN

A systematic review of surveys and interview studies with a descriptive analysis of quantitative data and thematic synthesis of qualitative data.

DATA SOURCES

An electronic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Health Management Information Consortium, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, PsycInfo, Web of Science, OpenGrey, the Cochrane Library, NHS Evidence, Google Scholar, Google, ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry from 1 January 1996 to 9 November 2016 with no language restriction and manual screening of reference lists of all included papers.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Primary research reporting views of commissioners, managers or healthcare professionals on the NHS Health Check programme and its implementation in practice.

RESULTS

Of 18 524 citations, 15 articles met the inclusion criteria. There was evidence from both quantitative and qualitative studies that some commissioners and general practice (GP) healthcare professionals were enthusiastic about the programme, whereas others raised concerns around inequality of uptake, the evidence base and cost-effectiveness. In contrast, those working in pharmacies were all positive about programme benefits, citing opportunities for their business and staff. The main challenges to implementation were: difficulties with information technology and computer software, resistance to the programme from some GPs, the impact on workload and staffing, funding and training needs. Inadequate privacy was also a challenge in pharmacy and community settings, along with difficulty recruiting people eligible for Health Checks and poor public access to some venues.

CONCLUSIONS

The success of the NHS Health Check Programme relies on engagement by those responsible for its commissioning, management and delivery. Recognising and addressing the challenges identified in this review, in particular the concerns of GPs, are important for the future of the programme.

An evaluation of the effectiveness of annual health checks and quality of health care for adults with intellectual disability: an observational study using a primary care database

Background

People with intellectual disability (ID) have poorer health than the general population; however, there is a lack of comprehensive national data describing their health-care needs and utilisation. Annual health checks for adults with ID have been incentivised through primary care since 2009, but only half of those eligible for such a health check receive one. It is unclear what impact health checks have had on important health outcomes, such as emergency hospitalisation.

Objectives

To evaluate whether or not annual health checks for adults with ID have reduced emergency hospitalisation, and to describe health, health care and mortality for adults with ID.

Design

A retrospective matched cohort study using primary care data linked to national hospital admissions and mortality data sets.

Setting

A total of 451 English general practices contributing data to Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD).

Participants

A total of 21,859 adults with ID compared with 152,846 age-, gender- and practice-matched controls without ID registered during 2009–13.

Interventions

None.

Main outcome measures

Emergency hospital admissions. Other outcomes – preventable admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions, and mortality.

Data sources

CPRD, Hospital Episodes Statistics and Office for National Statistics.

Results

Compared with the general population, adults with ID had higher levels of recorded comorbidity and were more likely to consult in primary care. However, they were less likely to have long doctor consultations, and had lower continuity of care. They had higher mortality rates [hazard ratio (HR) 3.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.3 to 3.9], with 37.0% of deaths classified as being amenable to health-care intervention (HR 5.9, 95% CI 5.1 to 6.8). They were more likely to have emergency hospital admissions [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 2.82, 95% CI 2.66 to 2.98], with 33.7% deemed preventable compared with 17.3% in controls (IRR 5.62, 95% CI 5.14 to 6.13). Health checks for adults with ID had no effect on overall emergency admissions compared with controls (IRR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.07), although there was a relative reduction in emergency admissions for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (IRR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.99). Practices with high health check participation also showed a relative fall in preventable emergency admissions for their patients with ID, compared with practices with minimal participation (IRR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.95). There were large variations in the health check-related content that was recorded on electronic records.

Limitations

Patients with milder ID not known to health services were not identified. We could not comment on the quality of health checks.

Conclusions

Compared with the general population, adults with ID have more chronic diseases and greater primary and secondary care utilisation. With more than one-third of deaths potentially amenable to health-care interventions, improvements in access to, and quality of, health care are required. In primary care, better continuity of care and longer appointment times are important examples that we identified. Although annual health checks can also improve access, not every eligible adult with ID receives one, and health check content varies by practice. Health checks had no impact on overall emergency admissions, but they appeared influential in reducing preventable emergency admissions.

Future work

No formal cost-effectiveness analysis of annual health checks was performed, but this could be attempted in relation to our estimates of a reduction in preventable emergency admissions.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

The cost-effectiveness of population Health Checks: have the NHS Health Checks been unfairly maligned?

AIM

The English NHS currently has a policy of providing Health Checks to all 40-74 year olds. Administered in primary care, they aim to identify patients at risk of a range of diseases, including diabetes and heart disease, and facilitate care. This study is the first to use observed data on the effectiveness of the Checks to consider whether they represent a cost-effective use of limited NHS resources.

SUBJECT AND METHODS

Using a publicly available evaluation tool we conducted an analysis of the Checks to establish the long-term cost and health-related outcomes of a cohort of patients. The primary focus of the analysis was to establish whether the impact of the Checks on BMI was sufficient to justify their cost.

RESULTS

The Checks were associated with a reduction in mean BMI of 0.27 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.34) compared to no Check. When applied to the evaluative tool, a small but positive QALY gain of 0.05 per participant was observed, coupled with a reduction in disease-related care costs of £170 ($210 USD). When the estimated cost per Check (£179, $220 USD) is taken into account, we estimate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £900/QALY ($1109 USD/QALY).

CONCLUSIONS

Much of the criticism of the Health Checks has focussed on the relatively small average change in risk factors such as BMI. However, this analysis suggests that the significant health and cost-saving benefits from even a modest reduction in mean BMI, coupled with the low costs of the Checks, combine to result in a potentially highly cost-effective policy.

Use of aids for smoking cessation and alcohol reduction: A population survey of adults in England

Background

It is important for policy planning to chart the methods smokers and high-risk drinkers use to help them change their behaviour. This study assessed prevalence of use, and characteristics of users, of support for smoking cessation and alcohol reduction in England.

Methods

Data were used from the Smoking and Alcohol Toolkit Studies, which involve monthly face-to-face computer-assisted interviews of adults aged 16+ in England. We included data collected between June 2014 and July 2015 on 1600 smokers who had made at least one quit attempt and 911 high-risk drinkers (defined as scores >8+ on the full AUDIT or 5+ on questions 1–3 of the AUDIT-C) who had made an attempt to cut down in the past 12 months. Participants provided information on their socio-demographic characteristics and use of aids during their most recent quit attempt including pharmacotherapy, face-to-face counselling, telephone support, self-help materials (digital and printed), and complementary medicine.

Results

A total of 60.3% of smokers used aids in the past year, compared with just 14.9% of high-risk drinkers. Use of pharmacotherapy was high among smokers and very low among drinkers (56.0%_versus1.2%). Use of other aids was low for both behaviours: face-to-face counselling (2.6%_versus4.8%), self-help materials (1.4%_versus4.1%) and complementary medicine (1.0%_versus0.5%). Use of aids was more common among smokers aged 25–54 compared with 16–24 year olds (25–34,OR_adj1.49,p = 0.012; 35–44,OR_adj1.93,p < 0.001; 35–44,OR_adj1.93,p < 0.001; 45–54,OR_adj1.66,p = 0.008), with cigarette consumption >10 relative to <1 (10–20,OR_adj2.47,p = 0.011; >20,OR_adj4.23,p = 0.001), and less common among ethnic minorities (OR_adj0.69,p = 0.026). For alcohol reduction, use of aids was higher among ethnic minority groups (OR_adj2.41;p = 0.015), and those of social-grade D/E relative to AB (OR_adj2.29,p = 0.012&OR_adj3.13,p < 0.001).

Conclusion

In England, the use of pharmacotherapy is prevalent for smoking cessation but not alcohol reduction. Other aids are used at a low rate, with face-to-face counselling being more common for alcohol reduction than smoking cessation.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3862-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Do health checks improve risk factor detection in primary care? Matched cohort study using electronic health records

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the effect of NHS Health Checks on cardiovascular risk factor detection and inequalities.

METHODS

Matched cohort study in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, including participants who received a health check in England between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2013, together with matched control participants, with linked deprivation scores.

RESULTS

There were 91 618 eligible participants who received a health check, of whom 75 123 (82%) were matched with 182 245 controls. After the health check, 90% of men and 92% of women had complete data for blood pressure, total cholesterol, smoking and body mass index; a net 51% increase (P < 0.001) over controls. After the check, gender and deprivation inequalities in recording of all risk factors were lower than for controls. Net increase in risk factor detection was greater for hypercholesterolaemia (men +33%; women +32%) than for obesity (men +8%; women +4%) and hypertension in men only (+5%) (all P < 0.001). Detection of smoking was 5% lower in health check participants than controls (P < 0.001). Over 4 years, statins were prescribed to 11% of health -check participants and 7.6% controls (hazard ratio 1.58, 95% confidence interval 1.53-1.63, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

NHS Health Checks are associated with increased detection of hypercholesterolaemia, and to a lesser extent obesity and hypertension, but smokers may be under-represented.

Impact of the National Health Service Health Check on cardiovascular disease risk: a difference-in-differences matching analysis

BACKGROUND

The National Health Service Health Check program in England is the largest cardiovascular risk assessment and management program in the world. We assessed the effect of this program on modelled risk of cardiovascular disease, individual risk factors for cardiovascular disease, prescribing of relevant medications and diagnosis of vascular disease.

METHODS

We obtained retrospective electronic medical records for a randomly selected sample of 138 788 patients aged 40-74 years registered with 462 English general practices participating in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink between 2009 and 2013. We used a quasi-experimental design of difference-indifferences matching analysis to compare changes in outcomes between Health Check attendees and nonattendees, with a median follow-up time of 2 years.

RESULTS

Overall, 21.4% of the eligible population attended a Health Check. After matching (n = 29 672 in each group), attendees had a significant absolute reduction in modelled risk for cardiovascular disease (-0.21%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.24% to -0.19%) and individual risk factors: systolic blood pressure (-2.51 mm Hg, 95% CI -2.77 to -2.25 mm Hg), diastolic blood pressure (-1.46 mm Hg, 95% CI -1.62 to -1.29 mm Hg), body mass index (-0.27, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.20) and total cholesterol (-0.15 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.13 mmol/L). Statins were prescribed for 39.9% of attendees who were at high risk for cardiovascular disease. The program resulted in significantly more diagnoses of selected vascular diseases among attendees, with the largest increases for hypertension (2.99%) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (1.31%).

INTERPRETATION

The National Health Service Health Check program had statistically significant but clinically modest impacts on modelled risk for cardiovascular disease and individual risk factors, although diagnosis of vascular disease increased. Overall program performance was substantially below national and international targets, which highlights the need for careful planning, monitoring and evaluation of similar initiatives internationally.

Do health checks for adults with intellectual disability reduce emergency hospital admissions? Evaluation of a natural experiment

BACKGROUND

Annual health checks for adults with intellectual disability (ID) have been incentivised by National Health Service (NHS) England since 2009, but it is unclear what impact they have had on important health outcomes such as emergency hospitalisation.

METHODS

An evaluation of a 'natural experiment', incorporating practice and individual-level designs, to assess the effectiveness of health checks for adults with ID in reducing emergency hospital admissions using a large English primary care database. For practices, changes in admission rates for adults with ID between 2009-2010 and 2011-2012 were compared in 126 fully participating versus 68 non-participating practices. For individuals, changes in admission rates before and after the first health check for 7487 adults with ID were compared with 46 408 age-sex-practice matched controls. Incident rate ratios (IRRs) comparing changes in admission rates are presented for: all emergency, preventable emergency (for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs)) and elective emergency.

RESULTS

Practices with high health check participation showed no change in emergency admission rate among patients with ID over time compared with non-participating practices (IRR=0.97, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.19), but emergency admissions for ACSCs did fall (IRR=0.74, 0.58 to 0.95). Among individuals with ID, health checks had no effect on overall emergency admissions compared with controls (IRR=0.96, 0.87 to 1.07), although there was a relative reduction in emergency admissions for ACSCs (IRR=0.82, 0.69 to 0.99). Elective admissions showed no change with health checks in either analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Annual health checks in primary care for adults with ID did not alter overall emergency admissions, but they appeared influential in reducing preventable emergency admissions.

Cardiovascular screening to reduce the burden from cardiovascular disease: microsimulation study to quantify policy options

OBJECTIVES

 To estimate the potential impact of universal screening for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (National Health Service Health Checks) on disease burden and socioeconomic inequalities in health in England, and to compare universal screening with alternative feasible strategies.

DESIGN

 Microsimulation study of a close-to-reality synthetic population. Five scenarios were considered: baseline scenario, assuming that current trends in risk factors will continue in the future; universal screening; screening concentrated only in the most deprived areas; structural population-wide intervention; and combination of population-wide intervention and concentrated screening.

SETTING

 Synthetic population with similar characteristics to the community dwelling population of England.

PARTICIPANTS

 Synthetic people with traits informed by the health survey for England.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

 Cardiovascular disease cases and deaths prevented or postponed by 2030, stratified by fifths of socioeconomic status using the index of multiple deprivation.

RESULTS

 Compared with the baseline scenario, universal screening may prevent or postpone approximately 19 000 cases (interquartile range 11 000-28 000) and 3000 deaths (-1000-6000); concentrated screening 17 000 cases (9000-26 000) and 2000 deaths (-1000-5000); population-wide intervention 67 000 cases (57 000-77 000) and 8000 deaths (4000-11 000); and the combination of the population-wide intervention and concentrated screening 82 000 cases (73 000-93 000) and 9000 deaths (6000-13 000). The most equitable strategy would be the combination of the population-wide intervention and concentrated screening, followed by concentrated screening alone and the population-wide intervention. Universal screening had the least apparent impact on socioeconomic inequalities in health.

CONCLUSIONS

 When primary prevention strategies for reducing cardiovascular disease burden and inequalities are compared, universal screening seems less effective than alternative strategies, which incorporate population-wide approaches. Further research is needed to identify the best mix of population-wide and risk targeted CVD strategies to maximise cost effectiveness and minimise inequalities.

Statin use prior to first myocardial infarction in contemporary patients: Inefficient and not gender equitable

OBJECTIVES

Guidelines recommend initiating primary prevention with statins to those at highest cardiovascular risk. We assessed the gender-specific implementation and effectiveness of this risk-guided approach.

METHODS

We identified 1399 consecutive patients without known cardiovascular disease or diabetes hospitalized with a first myocardial infarction (MI) in Denmark. Statin use before MI was assessed, and cardiovascular risk was calculated using SCORE (Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation).

RESULTS

Among patients with first MI, 36% were women. Compared with men, they were older (mean 72 vs. 65years) but had a lower estimated risk (median 3.4% vs. 6.7%, SCORE high-risk model in the statin-naïve patients). Statin therapy had been initiated in 12% of women and 10% of men prior to MI. After adding 1.5mmol/L to the total cholesterol concentration of those already on statins, the estimated pre-treatment risk was much lower in women than men (median 3.8% vs. 9.2%, SCORE high-risk model), and only 29% of women would have passed the risk-based treatment threshold defined by the European guidelines (SCORE ≥5%). Estimated risk and statin use correlated directly in men but not in women. Only ~5% of first MI are prevented by the current use of statins in people without diabetes.

CONCLUSION

In people destined for a first MI, statin therapy is uncommon and prevents few events. Lower-risk women receive as much statins as higher risk men. This gender disparity and inefficient targeting of statins to those at highest risk indicate that risk scoring is not widely used in routine clinical practice in Denmark.

A retrospective evaluation of the NHS Health Check Programme in a multi-ethnic population

BACKGROUND

The NHS Health Check Programme was introduced in 2009 to improve primary prevention of coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes and chronic kidney disease; however, there has been debate regarding the impact. We present a retrospective evaluation of Leicester City Clinical Commissioning Group.

METHODS

Data are reported on diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, high risk of type 2 diabetes and high risk of cardiovascular disease. Data on management following the Health Check are also reported.

RESULTS

Over a 5-year period, 53 799 health checks were performed, 16 388 (30%) people were diagnosed with at least one condition when diagnosis of being at high risk of cardiovascular disease was defined as ≥20%. This figure increased to 43% when diagnosis of high cardiovascular risk ≥10% was included. Of the 3063 (5.7%) individuals diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, 54% were prescribed metformin and 26% were referred for structured education. Of the 5797 (10.8%) individuals diagnosed at high risk of cardiovascular disease (≥20%), 64% were prescribed statins.

CONCLUSIONS

A high proportion of new cases of people at risk of cardiovascular disease were identified by the NHS Health Check Programme. Data suggest that this has translated into appropriate preventative measures.