Dataset Information

General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:General health checks are common elements of health care in some countries. They aim to detect disease and risk factors for disease with the purpose of reducing morbidity and mortality. Most of the commonly used individual screening tests offered in general health checks have been incompletely studied. Also, screening leads to increased use of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, which can be harmful as well as beneficial. It is therefore important to assess whether general health checks do more good than harm. This is the first update of the review published in 2012. OBJECTIVES:To quantify the benefits and harms of general health checks. SEARCH METHODS:We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trials registers on 31 January 2018. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed papers for eligibility and read reference lists. One review author used citation tracking (Web of Knowledge) and asked trial authors about additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA:We included randomised trials comparing health checks with no health checks in adults unselected for disease or risk factors. We did not include geriatric trials. We defined health checks as screening for more than one disease or risk factor in more than one organ system. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the trials. We contacted trial authors for additional outcomes or trial details when necessary. When possible, we analysed the results with a random-effects model meta-analysis; otherwise, we did a narrative synthesis. MAIN RESULTS:We included 17 trials, 15 of which reported outcome data (251,891 participants). Risk of bias was generally low for our primary outcomes. Health checks have little or no effect on total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.03; 11 trials; 233,298 participants and 21,535 deaths; high-certainty evidence, I2 = 0%), or cancer mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.12; 8 trials; 139,290 participants and 3663 deaths; high-certainty evidence, I2 = 33%), and probably have little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.16; 9 trials; 170,227 participants and 6237 deaths; moderate-certainty evidence; I2 = 65%). Health checks have little or no effect on fatal and non-fatal ischaemic heart disease (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.03; 4 trials; 164,881 persons, 10,325 events; high-certainty evidence; I2 = 11%), and probably have little or no effect on fatal and non-fatal stroke (RR 1.05 95% CI 0.95 to 1.17; 3 trials; 107,421 persons, 4543 events; moderate-certainty evidence, I2 = 53%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:General health checks are unlikely to be beneficial.

SUBMITTER: Krogsboll LT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6353639 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo quantify the benefits and harms of general health checks in adults with an emphasis on patient-relevant outcomes such as morbidity and mortality rather than on surrogate outcomes.DesignCochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. For mortality, we analysed the results with random effects meta-analysis, and for other outcomes we did a qualitative synthesis as meta-analysis was not feasible.Data sourcesMedline, EMBASE, Healthstar, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, EPOC register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP, supplemented by manual searches of reference lists of included studies, citation tracking (Web of Knowledge), and contacts with trialists.Selection criteriaRandomised trials comparing health checks with no health checks in adult populations unselected for disease or risk factors. Health checks defined as screening general populations for more than one disease or risk factor in more than one organ system. We did not include geriatric trials.Data extractionTwo observers independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We contacted authors for additional outcomes or trial details when necessary.ResultsWe identified 16 trials, 14 of which had available outcome data (182,880 participants). Nine trials provided data on total mortality (11,940 deaths), and they gave a risk ratio of 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.03). Eight trials provided data on cardiovascular mortality (4567 deaths), risk ratio 1.03 (0.91 to 1.17), and eight on cancer mortality (3663 deaths), risk ratio 1.01 (0.92 to 1.12). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not alter these findings. We did not find beneficial effects of general health checks on morbidity, hospitalisation, disability, worry, additional physician visits, or absence from work, but not all trials reported on these outcomes. One trial found that health checks led to a 20% increase in the total number of new diagnoses per participant over six years compared with the control group and an increased number of people with self reported chronic conditions, and one trial found an increased prevalence of hypertension and hypercholesterolaemia. Two out of four trials found an increased use of antihypertensives. Two out of four trials found small beneficial effects on self reported health, which could be due to bias.ConclusionsGeneral health checks did not reduce morbidity or mortality, neither overall nor for cardiovascular or cancer causes, although they increased the number of new diagnoses. Important harmful outcomes were often not studied or reported.Systematic review registrationCochrane Library, doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009009.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Global prevalence of risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality is increasing. Treatments are available but can only be implemented if individuals at risk are identified. General health checks have been suggested to facilitate this process. OBJECTIVES:To examine the long-term effect of population-based general health checks on CVD and all-cause mortality. DESIGN AND SETTING:The Ebeltoft Health Promotion Project (EHPP) is a parallel randomised controlled trial in a Danish primary care setting. PARTICIPANTS:The EHPP enrolled individuals registered in the Civil Registration System as (1) inhabitants of Ebeltoft municipality, (2) registered with a general practitioner (GP) participating in the study and (3) aged 30-49 on 1 January 1991. A total of 3464 individuals were randomised as invitees (n=2000) or non-invitees (n=1464). Of the invitees, 493 declined. As an external control group, we included 1?511?498 Danes living outside the municipality of Ebeltoft. INTERVENTIONS:Invitees were offered a general health check and, if test-results were abnormal, recommended a 15-45?min consultation with their GP. Non-invitees in Ebeltoft received a questionnaire at baseline and were offered a general health check at year 5. The external control group, that is, the remaining Danish population, received routine care only. OUTCOME MEASURES:HRs for CVD and all-cause mortality. RESULTS:Every individual randomised was analysed. When comparing invitees to non-invitees within the municipality of Ebeltoft, we found no significant effect of general health checks on CVD (HR=1.11 (0.88; 1.41)) or all-cause mortality (HR=0.93 (0.75; 1.16)). When comparing invitees to the remaining Danish population, we found similar results for CVD (adjusted HR=0.99 (0.86; 1.13)) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR=0.96 (0.85; 1.09)). CONCLUSION:We found no effect of general health checks offered to the general population on CVD or all-cause mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT00145782; 2015-57-0002; 62908, 187.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic preventive health checks in primary care have been introduced in several countries. The Danish Health Service does not provide this service, but health checks are nevertheless being conducted unsystematically. Very little is known about the GPs' experience with this service.The purpose of our study is to describe GPs' attitudes towards and concerns about providing preventive health checks and to describe their experiences with the health checks that they provide in daily practice.MethodsA qualitative descriptive study was conducted based on three semi-structured focus group interviews with 16 GPs from Central Region, Denmark. The focus group interviews took place at the Department of Public Health, Section for General Practice, Aarhus University in November 2010.ResultsWe found that the participating GPs all conducted some kind of preventive health checks, but also that there was great diversity in the content. The GPs were somewhat ambivalent towards health checks. Many GPs found the service beneficial for the patients. Concurrently, they had reservations about promoting ill-health, they questioned whether the health checks were a core mission of primary care, and they were concerned whether the health checks would benefit the "right" patients. The GPs felt a need for further documentation of the benefits for the patients before a possible future implementation of systematic health checks. Some GPs found that health checks could be performed in other settings than general practice.ConclusionsOur study revealed that health checks are performed differently. Their quality differs, and the GPs perform the health check based on their personal attitude towards this service and prevention in general. Our analysis suggests that the doctors are basically uncertain about the best approach. Our study also uncovers the GPs' reservations about inducing negative psychological reactions and decreased well-being among the health check participants. Further studies are needed to disclose where these concerns emerge.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Health checks or health screenings identify (risk factors for) disease in people without a specific medical indication. So far, the perspective of (potential) health check users has remained underexposed in discussions about the ethics and regulation of health checks. METHODS:In 2017, we conducted a qualitative study with lay people from the Netherlands (four focus groups). We asked what participants consider characteristics of good and bad health checks, and whether they saw a role for the Dutch government. RESULTS:Participants consider a good predictive value the most important characteristic of a good health check. Information before, during and after the test, knowledgeable and reliable providers, tests for treatable (risk factors for) disease, respect for privacy, no unnecessary health risks and accessibility are also mentioned as criteria for good health checks. Participants make many assumptions about health check offers. They assume health checks provide certainty about the presence or absence of disease, that health checks offer opportunities for health benefits and that the privacy of health check data is guaranteed. In their choice for provider and test they tend to rely more on heuristics than information. Participants trust physicians to put the interest of potential health check users first and expect the Dutch government to intervene if providers other than physicians failed to do so by offering tests with a low predictive value, or tests that may harm people, or by infringing the privacy of users. CONCLUSIONS:Assumptions of participants are not always justified, but they may influence the choice to participate. This is problematic because choices for checks with a low predictive value that do not provide health benefits may create uncertainty and may cause harm to health; an outcome diametrically opposite to the one intended. Also, this may impair the relationship of trust with physicians and the Dutch government. To further and protect autonomous choice and to maintain trust, we recommend the following measures to timely adjust false expectations: advertisements that give an accurate impression of health check offers, and the installation of a quality mark.

Dataset Information

General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets