Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Research

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

Kiara Chu-Mei Chang, John Tayu Lee, Eszter P. Vamos, Michael Soljak, Desmond Johnston, Kamlesh Khunti, Azeem Majeed and Christopher Millett
CMAJ July 12, 2016 188 (10) E228-E238; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.151201
Kiara Chu-Mei Chang
Department of Primary Care and Public Health (Chang, Lee, Vamos, Soljak, Majeed, Millet) and Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism (Johnston), Department of Medicine, Imperial College, London, UK; Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health (Lee), National University of Singapore, Singapore; Diabetes Research Centre (Khunti), Leicester Diabetes Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: chu-mei.chang@imperial.ac.uk
John Tayu Lee
Department of Primary Care and Public Health (Chang, Lee, Vamos, Soljak, Majeed, Millet) and Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism (Johnston), Department of Medicine, Imperial College, London, UK; Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health (Lee), National University of Singapore, Singapore; Diabetes Research Centre (Khunti), Leicester Diabetes Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eszter P. Vamos
Department of Primary Care and Public Health (Chang, Lee, Vamos, Soljak, Majeed, Millet) and Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism (Johnston), Department of Medicine, Imperial College, London, UK; Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health (Lee), National University of Singapore, Singapore; Diabetes Research Centre (Khunti), Leicester Diabetes Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Soljak
Department of Primary Care and Public Health (Chang, Lee, Vamos, Soljak, Majeed, Millet) and Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism (Johnston), Department of Medicine, Imperial College, London, UK; Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health (Lee), National University of Singapore, Singapore; Diabetes Research Centre (Khunti), Leicester Diabetes Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Desmond Johnston
Department of Primary Care and Public Health (Chang, Lee, Vamos, Soljak, Majeed, Millet) and Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism (Johnston), Department of Medicine, Imperial College, London, UK; Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health (Lee), National University of Singapore, Singapore; Diabetes Research Centre (Khunti), Leicester Diabetes Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kamlesh Khunti
Department of Primary Care and Public Health (Chang, Lee, Vamos, Soljak, Majeed, Millet) and Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism (Johnston), Department of Medicine, Imperial College, London, UK; Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health (Lee), National University of Singapore, Singapore; Diabetes Research Centre (Khunti), Leicester Diabetes Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Azeem Majeed
Department of Primary Care and Public Health (Chang, Lee, Vamos, Soljak, Majeed, Millet) and Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism (Johnston), Department of Medicine, Imperial College, London, UK; Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health (Lee), National University of Singapore, Singapore; Diabetes Research Centre (Khunti), Leicester Diabetes Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christopher Millett
Department of Primary Care and Public Health (Chang, Lee, Vamos, Soljak, Majeed, Millet) and Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism (Johnston), Department of Medicine, Imperial College, London, UK; Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health (Lee), National University of Singapore, Singapore; Diabetes Research Centre (Khunti), Leicester Diabetes Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

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.

  • Accepted January 11, 2016.
View Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 188 (10)
CMAJ
Vol. 188, Issue 10
12 Jul 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to 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.
Impact of the National Health Service Health Check on cardiovascular disease risk: a difference-in-differences matching analysis
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Impact of the National Health Service Health Check on cardiovascular disease risk: a difference-in-differences matching analysis
Kiara Chu-Mei Chang, John Tayu Lee, Eszter P. Vamos, Michael Soljak, Desmond Johnston, Kamlesh Khunti, Azeem Majeed, Christopher Millett
CMAJ Jul 2016, 188 (10) E228-E238; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.151201

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Impact of the National Health Service Health Check on cardiovascular disease risk: a difference-in-differences matching analysis
Kiara Chu-Mei Chang, John Tayu Lee, Eszter P. Vamos, Michael Soljak, Desmond Johnston, Kamlesh Khunti, Azeem Majeed, Christopher Millett
CMAJ Jul 2016, 188 (10) E228-E238; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.151201
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Interpretation
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Highlights
  • NHS Health Check: national evaluation findings and implications
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • What are the cost-savings and health benefits of improving detection and management for six high cardiovascular risk conditions in England? An economic evaluation
  • Prevalence of chronic kidney disease in adults in England: comparison of nationally representative cross-sectional surveys from 2003 to 2016
  • Cardiovascular risk profiles and the uptake of the NHS Healthcheck programme in male prisoners in six UK prisons: an observational cross-sectional survey
  • Impact of transforming mental health services for young people in England on patient access, resource use and health: a quasi-experimental study
  • A Randomised Trial Examining Cardiovascular Morbidity and All-Cause Mortality 24 years Following General Health Checks: the Ebeltoft Health Promotion Project (EHPP)
  • Impact of the NHS Health Check on inequalities in cardiovascular disease risk: a difference-in-differences matching analysis
  • Delivery and impact of the NHS Health Check in the first 8 years: a systematic review
  • Levels of detection of hypertension in primary medical care and interventions to improve detection: a systematic review of the evidence since 2000
  • Views of commissioners, managers and healthcare professionals on the NHS Health Check programme: a systematic review
  • Development of a questionnaire to evaluate patients awareness of cardiovascular disease risk in Englands National Health Service Health Check preventive cardiovascular programme
  • Does use of point-of-care testing improve cost-effectiveness of the NHS Health Check programme in the primary care setting? A cost-minimisation analysis
  • Outcomes of an integrated community-based nurse-led cardiovascular disease prevention programme
  • NHS Health Check comorbidity and management: an observational matched study in primary care
  • NHS Health Check: national evaluation findings and implications
  • The authors respond to "NHS Health Check: national evaluation findings and implications"
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Physician choices in pulmonary embolism testing
  • Symptoms associated with a positive result for a swab for SARS-CoV-2 infection among children in Alberta
  • Diagnosis-wide analysis of COVID-19 complications: an exposure-crossover study
Show more Research

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Drugs: cardiovascular system
    • Cardiology: ischemic heart disease
    • Cardiology: hypertension
    • Cardiology: heart failure

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire