↓ Skip to main content

Patient experience of NHS health checks: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
32 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Patient experience of NHS health checks: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis
Published in
BMJ Open, August 2017
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017169
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juliet A Usher-Smith, Emma Harte, Calum MacLure, Adam Martin, Catherine L Saunders, Catherine Meads, Fiona M Walter, Simon J Griffin, Jonathan Mant

Abstract

To review the experiences of patients attending NHS Health Checks in England. A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies with a thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. 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, 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. Primary research reporting experiences of patients who have attended NHS Health Checks. 20 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. While 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Librarian 3 7%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 6 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 12%
Psychology 3 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 12 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 May 2018.
All research outputs
#553,000
of 12,884,059 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#1,182
of 10,515 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,486
of 264,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#67
of 607 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,884,059 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,515 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,869 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 607 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.