Estimating the yield of NHS Health Checks in England: a population-based cohort study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Forster AS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5942532 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Estimating the yield of NHS Health Checks in England: a population-based cohort study.
Forster Alice S AS Dodhia Hiten H Booth Helen H Dregan Alex A Fuller Frances F Miller Jane J Burgess Caroline C McDermott Lisa L Gulliford Martin C MC
Journal of public health (Oxford, England) 20141017 2
<h4>Background</h4>This study aimed to evaluate the yield of the NHS Health Checks programme.<h4>Methods</h4>A cohort study, conducted in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in England. Electronic health records were analysed for patients aged 40-74 receiving an NHS Health Check between 2010 and 2013.<h4>Results</h4>There were 65 324 men and 75 032 women receiving a health check. For every 1000 men assessed, there were 205 smokers (95% confidence interval 195-215), 355 (340-369) with hyperte ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:AimThe 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 methodsUsing 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionsMuch 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.
| S-EPMC5515950 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:The NHS Health Check programme is a public screening and prevention initiative in England to detect early signs of cardiovascular ill health among healthy adults. We aimed to explore patient perspectives and experiences of a personalised Risk Report designed to improve cardiovascular risk communication in the NHS Health Check. DESIGN AND SETTING:This is a qualitative study with NHS Health Check attendees in three general practices in the London Borough of Newham. INTERVENTION AND PARTICIPANTS:A personalised Risk Report for the NHS Health Check was developed to improve communication of results and advice. The Risk Report was embedded in the electronic health record, printed with auto-filled results and used as a discussion aid during the NHS Health Check, and was a take-home record of information and advice on risk reduction for the attendees. 18 purposively sampled socially diverse participants took part in semistructured interviews, which were analysed thematically. RESULTS:For most participants, the NHS Health Check was an opportunity for reassurance and assessment, and the Risk Report was an enduring record that supported risk understanding, with impact beyond the individual. For a minority, ambivalence towards the Risk Report occurred in the context of attending for other reasons, and risk and lifestyle advice were not internalised or acted on. CONCLUSION:Our findings demonstrate the potential of a personalised Risk Report as a useful intervention in NHS Health Checks for enhancing patient understanding of cardiovascular risk and strategies for risk reduction. Also highlighted are the challenges that must be overcome to ensure transferability of these benefits to diverse patient groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02486913.
| S-EPMC6731822 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The majority of people do not achieve recommended levels of physical activity. There is a need for effective, scalable interventions to promote activity. Self-monitoring by pedometer is a potentially suitable strategy. We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief (5-minute) pedometer-based intervention ('Step It Up') delivered as part of National Health Service (NHS) Health Checks in primary care. METHODS AND FINDINGS:The Very Brief Intervention (VBI) Trial was a two parallel-group, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with 3-month follow-up, conducted in 23 primary care practices in the East of England. Participants were 1,007 healthy adults aged 40 to 74 years eligible for an NHS Health Check. They were randomly allocated (1:1) using a web-based tool between October 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015, to either intervention (505) or control group (502), stratified by primary care practice. Participants were aware of study group allocation. Control participants received the NHS Health Check only. Intervention participants additionally received Step It Up: a 5-minute face-to-face discussion, written materials, pedometer, and step chart. The primary outcome was accelerometer-based physical activity volume at 3-month follow-up adjusted for sex, 5-year age group, and general practice. Secondary outcomes included time spent in different intensities of physical activity, self-reported physical activity, and economic measures. We conducted an in-depth fidelity assessment on a subsample of Health Check consultations. Participants' mean age was 56 years, two-thirds were female, they were predominantly white, and two-thirds were in paid employment. The primary outcome was available in 859 (85.3%) participants. There was no significant between-group difference in activity volume at 3 months (adjusted intervention effect 8.8 counts per minute [cpm]; 95% CI -18.7 to 36.3; p = 0.53). We found no significant between-group differences in the secondary outcomes of step counts per day, time spent in moderate or vigorous activity, time spent in vigorous activity, and time spent in moderate-intensity activity (accelerometer-derived variables); as well as in total physical activity, home-based activity, work-based activity, leisure-based activity, commuting physical activity, and screen or TV time (self-reported physical activity variables). Of the 505 intervention participants, 491 (97%) received the Step it Up intervention. Analysis of 37 intervention consultations showed that 60% of Step it Up components were delivered faithfully. The intervention cost £18.04 per participant. Incremental cost to the NHS per 1,000-step increase per day was £96 and to society was £239. Adverse events were reported by 5 intervention participants (of which 2 were serious) and 5 control participants (of which 2 were serious). The study's limitations include a participation rate of 16% and low return of audiotapes by practices for fidelity assessment. CONCLUSIONS:In this large well-conducted trial, we found no evidence of effect of a plausible very brief pedometer intervention embedded in NHS Health Checks on objectively measured activity at 3-month follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN72691150).
| S-EPMC7059905 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe 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 findingsA 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.ConclusionsOur 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.
| S-EPMC6667114 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the impact of reorganisation of neonatal specialist care services in England after a UK Department of Health report in 2003.DesignA population-wide observational comparison of outcomes over two epochs, before and after the establishment of managed clinical neonatal networks.SettingEpoch one: 294 maternity and neonatal units in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, 1 September 1998 to 31 August 2000, as reported by the Confidential Enquiry into Stillbirths and Sudden Deaths in Infancy Project 27/28. Epoch two: 146 neonatal units in England contributing data to the National Neonatal Research Database at the Neonatal Data Analysis Unit, 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2010.ParticipantsBabies born at a gestational age of 27(+0)-28(+6) (weeks+days): 3522 live births in epoch one; 2919 babies admitted to a neonatal unit within 28 days of birth in epoch two.InterventionThe national reorganisation of neonatal services into managed clinical networks.Main outcome measuresThe proportion of babies born at hospitals providing the highest volume of neonatal specialist care (≥ 2000 neonatal intensive care days annually), having an acute transfer (within the first 24 hours after birth) and/or a late transfer (between 24 hours and 28 days after birth) to another hospital, assessed by change in distribution of transfer category ("none," "acute," "late"), and babies from multiple births separated by transfer. For acute transfers in epoch two, the level of specialist neonatal care provided at the destination hospital (British Association of Perinatal Medicine criteria).ResultsAfter reorganisation, there were increases in the proportions of babies born at 27-28 weeks' gestation in hospitals providing the highest volume of neonatal specialist care (18% (631/3495) v 49% (1325/2724); odds ratio 4.30, 95% confidence interval 3.83 to 4.82; P<0.001) and in acute and late postnatal transfers (7% (235) v 12% (360) and 18% (579) v 22% (640), respectively; P<0.001). There was no significant change in the proportion of babies from multiple births separated by transfer (33% (39) v 29% (38); 0.86, 0.50 to 1.46; P=0.57). In epoch two, 32% of acute transfers were to a neonatal unit providing either an equivalent (n=87) or lower (n=26) level of specialist care.ConclusionsThere is evidence of some improvement in the delivery of neonatal specialist care after reorganisation. The increase in acute transfers in epoch two, in conjunction with the high proportion transferred to a neonatal unit providing an equivalent or lower level of specialist care, and the continued separation of babies from multiple births, are indicative of poor coordination between maternity and neonatal services to facilitate in utero transfer before delivery, and continuing inadequacies in capacity of intensive care cots. Historical data representing epoch one are available only in aggregate form, preventing examination of temporal trends or confounding factors. This limits the extent to which differences between epochs can be attributed to reorganisation and highlights the importance of routine, prospective data collection for evaluation of future health service reorganisations.
| S-EPMC3318112 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPostcode lotteries in health refer to differences in health care between different geographic areas. These have been previously associated with clinical services. However there has been little documentation of postcode lotteries relating to preventative health care services. This paper describes a postcode lottery effect in relation to the NHS Health Checks Programme (a national cardiovascular screening programme in England) in eight PCTs in the North West sector of London.MethodsA descriptive cross-sectional analysis of the Health Checks Programme was carried out in eight PCTs in North West London using a structured data-collecting instrument.ResultsThe analysis found variation in the implementation of the national Health Checks Programme in terms of: the screening approach taken; the allocated budget (which varied from £69,000 to £1.4 million per 100,000 eligible population); payment rates made to providers of Health Checks; tools used to identify and measure risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes; monitoring and evaluation; and preventative services available following the health check.ConclusionsThis study identifies a postcode lottery effect related to a national public health programme. Although it is important to allow enough flexibility in the design of the Health Checks Programme so that it fits in with local factors, aspects of the programme may benefit from greater standardisation or stronger national guidance.
| S-EPMC3195760 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo review the experiences of patients attending NHS Health Checks in England.DesignA systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies with a thematic synthesis of qualitative studies.Data sourcesAn 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, National Health Service (NHS) Evidence, Google Scholar, Google, Clinical Trials.gov and the ISRCTN registry to 09/11/16 with no language restriction and manual screening of reference lists of all included papers.Inclusion criteriaPrimary research reporting experiences of patients who have attended NHS Health Checks.Results20 studies met the inclusion criteria, 9 reporting quantitative data and 15 qualitative data. There were consistently high levels of reported satisfaction in surveys, with over 80% feeling that they had benefited from an NHS Health Check. Data from qualitative studies showed that the NHS Health Check had been perceived to act as a wake-up call for many who reported having gone on to make substantial lifestyle changes which they attributed to the NHS Health Check. However, some had been left with a feeling of unmet expectations, were confused about or unable to remember their risk scores, found the lifestyle advice too simplistic and non-personalised or were confused about follow-up.ConclusionsWhile participants were generally very supportive of the NHS Health Check programme and examples of behaviour change were reported, there are a number of areas where improvements could be made. These include greater clarity around the aims of the programme within the promotional material, more proactive support for lifestyle change and greater appreciation of the challenges of communicating risk and the limitations of relying on the risk score alone as a trigger for facilitating behaviour change.
| S-EPMC5724113 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Stakeholder engagement is being increasingly recognised as an important way to achieving impact in public health. The WorkHORSE (Working Health Outcomes Research Simulation Environment) project was designed to continuously engage with stakeholders to inform the development of an open access modelling tool to enable commissioners to quantify the potential cost-effectiveness and equity of the NHS Health Check Programme. An objective of the project was to evaluate the involvement of stakeholders in co-producing the WorkHORSE computer modelling tool and examine how they perceived their involvement in the model building process and ultimately contributed to the strengthening and relevance of the modelling tool. METHODS:We identified stakeholders using our extensive networks and snowballing techniques. Iterative development of the decision support modelling tool was informed through engaging with stakeholders during four workshops. We used detailed scripts facilitating open discussion and opportunities for stakeholders to provide additional feedback subsequently. At the end of each workshop, stakeholders and the research team completed questionnaires to explore their views and experiences throughout the process. RESULTS:30 stakeholders participated, of which 15 attended two or more workshops. They spanned local (NHS commissioners, GPs, local authorities and academics), third sector and national organisations including Public Health England. Stakeholders felt valued, and commended the involvement of practitioners in the iterative process. Major reasons for attending included: being able to influence development, and having insight and understanding of what the tool could include, and how it would work in practice. Researchers saw the process as an opportunity for developing a common language and trust in the end product, and ensuring the support tool was transparent. The workshops acted as a reality check ensuring model scenarios and outputs were relevant and fit for purpose. CONCLUSIONS:Computational modellers rarely consult with end users when developing tools to inform decision-making. The added value of co-production (continuing collaboration and iteration with stakeholders) enabled modellers to produce a "real-world" operational tool. Likewise, stakeholders had increased confidence in the decision support tool's development and applicability in practice.
| S-EPMC7418313 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major challenge for health care systems around the world, and the prevalence rates appear to be increasing. We estimate the costs of CKD in a universal health care system. METHODS:Economic modelling was used to estimate the annual cost of Stages 3-5 CKD to the National Health Service (NHS) in England, including CKD-related prescribing and care, renal replacement therapy (RRT), and excess strokes, myocardial infarctions (MIs) and Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) infections in people with CKD. RESULTS:The cost of CKD to the English NHS in 2009-10 is estimated at £ 1.44 to £ 1.45 billion, which is ? 1.3% of all NHS spending in that year. More than half this sum was spent on RRT, which was provided for 2% of the CKD population. The economic model estimates that ? 7000 excess strokes and 12 000 excess MIs occurred in the CKD population in 2009-10, relative to an age- and gender-matched population without CKD. The cost of excess strokes and MIs is estimated at £ 174-£ 178 million. CONCLUSIONS:The financial impact of CKD is large, with particularly high costs relating to RRT and cardiovascular complications. It is hoped that these detailed cost estimates will be useful in analysing the cost-effectiveness of treatments for CKD.
| S-EPMC3484716 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A population-based programme of health checks has been established in England. Participants receive postal invitations through a population-based call-recall system but health check providers may also offer health checks opportunistically. We compared cardiovascular risk scores for 'invited' and 'opportunistic' health checks.Cohort study of all health checks completed at 18 general practices from July 2013 to June 2015. For each general practice, cardiovascular (CVD) risk scores were compared by source of check and pooled using meta-analysis. Effect estimates were compared by gender, age-group, ethnicity and fifths of deprivation.There were 6184 health checks recorded (2280 invited and 3904 opportunistic) with CVD risk scores recorded for 5359 (87%) participants. There were 17.0% of invited checks and 22.2% of opportunistic health checks with CVD risk score ?10%; a relative increment of 28% (95% confidence interval: 14-44%, P < 0.001). In the most deprived quintile, 15.3% of invited checks and 22.4% of opportunistic checks were associated with elevated CVD risk (adjusted odds ratio: 1.94, 1.37-2.74, P < 0.001).Respondents at health checks performed opportunistically are at higher risk of cardiovascular disease than those participating in response to a standard invitation letter, potentially reducing the effect of uptake inequalities.
| S-EPMC6053837 | biostudies-other