↓ Skip to main content

What is a good health check? An interview study of health check providers’ views and practices

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
What is a good health check? An interview study of health check providers’ views and practices
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12910-017-0213-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yrrah H. Stol, Eva C. A. Asscher, Maartje H. N. Schermer

Abstract

Health checks identify (risk factors for) disease in people without symptoms. They may be offered by the government through population screenings and by other providers to individual users as 'personal health checks'. Health check providers' perspective of 'good' health checks may further the debate on the ethical evaluation and possible regulation of these personal health checks. In 2015, we interviewed twenty Dutch health check providers on criteria for 'good' health checks, and the role these criteria play in their practices. Providers unanimously formulate a number of minimal criteria: Checks must focus on (risk factors for) treatable/preventable disease; Tests must be reliable and clinically valid; Participation must be informed and voluntary; Checks should provide more benefits than harms; Governmental screenings should be cost-effective. Aspirational criteria mentioned were: Follow-up care should be provided; Providers should be skilled and experienced professionals that put the benefit of (potential) users first; Providers should take time and attention. Some criteria were contested: People should be free to test on any (risk factor for) disease; Health checks should only be performed in people at high risk for disease that are likely to implement health advice; Follow up care of privately funded tests should not drain on collective resources. Providers do not always fulfil their own criteria. Their reasons reveal conflicts between criteria, conflicts between criteria and other ethical values, and point to components in the (Dutch) organisation of health care that hinder an ethical provision of health checks. Moreover, providers consider informed consent a criterion that is hard to establish in practice. According to providers, personal health checks should meet the same criteria as population screenings, with the exception of cost-effectiveness. Providers do not always fulfil their own criteria. Results indicate that in thinking about the ethics of health checks potential conflicts between criteria and underlying values should be explicated, guidance in weighing of criteria should be provided and the larger context should be taken into account: other actors than providers need to take up responsibility, and ideally benefits and harms of health checks should be weighed against other measures targeting (risk factors for) disease.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 21%
Student > Master 3 21%
Student > Bachelor 2 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 14%
Unspecified 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 4 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 21%
Social Sciences 2 14%
Sports and Recreations 1 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Other 2 14%
Unknown 1 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 09 October 2017.
All research outputs
#7,408,630
of 11,895,477 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#409
of 501 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,817
of 272,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#7
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,895,477 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 501 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 272,904 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.