↓ Skip to main content

Views of commissioners, managers and healthcare professionals on the NHS Health Check programme: a systematic review

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Views of commissioners, managers and healthcare professionals on the NHS Health Check programme: a systematic review
Published in
BMJ Open, November 2017
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018606
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

To synthesise data concerning the views of commissioners, managers and healthcare professionals towards the National Health Service (NHS) Health Check programme in general and the challenges faced when implementing it in practice. A systematic review of surveys and interview studies with a descriptive analysis of quantitative data and thematic synthesis of qualitative data. 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, NHS Evidence, Google Scholar, Google, ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry from 1 January 1996 to 9 November 2016 with no language restriction and manual screening of reference lists of all included papers. Primary research reporting views of commissioners, managers or healthcare professionals on the NHS Health Check programme and its implementation in practice. Of 18 524 citations, 15 articles met the inclusion criteria. There was evidence from both quantitative and qualitative studies that some commissioners and general practice (GP) healthcare professionals were enthusiastic about the programme, whereas others raised concerns around inequality of uptake, the evidence base and cost-effectiveness. In contrast, those working in pharmacies were all positive about programme benefits, citing opportunities for their business and staff. The main challenges to implementation were: difficulties with information technology and computer software, resistance to the programme from some GPs, the impact on workload and staffing, funding and training needs. Inadequate privacy was also a challenge in pharmacy and community settings, along with difficulty recruiting people eligible for Health Checks and poor public access to some venues. The success of the NHS Health Check Programme relies on engagement by those responsible for its commissioning, management and delivery. Recognising and addressing the challenges identified in this review, in particular the concerns of GPs, are important for the future of the programme.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 21%
Student > Master 6 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Unspecified 4 12%
Other 3 9%
Other 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 10 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 21%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Other 3 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 12 February 2018.
All research outputs
#1,807,264
of 12,498,628 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#3,226
of 9,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,252
of 264,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#131
of 390 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,498,628 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,910 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 264,922 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 390 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.