↓ Skip to main content

Reasons why people do not attend NHS Health Checks: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, December 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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
45 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Reasons why people do not attend NHS Health Checks: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, December 2017
DOI 10.3399/bjgp17x693929
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

The NHS Health Check programme is a prevention initiative offering cardiovascular risk assessment and management advice to adults aged 40-74 years across England. Its effectiveness depends on uptake. When it was introduced in 2009, it was anticipated that all those eligible would be invited over a 5-year cycle and 75% of those invited would attend. So far in the current cycle from 2013 to 2018, 33.8% of those eligible have attended, which is equal to 48.5% of those invited to attend. Understanding the reasons why some people do not attend is important to maximise the impact of the programmes. To review why people do not attend NHS Health Checks. A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. An electronic literature search was carried out of MEDLINE, Embase, Health Management Information Consortium, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, PsycINFO, Web of Science, OpenGrey, the Cochrane Library, NHS Evidence, Google Scholar, Google, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the ISRCTN registry from 1 January 1996 to 9 November 2016, and the reference lists of all included papers were also screened manually. Inclusion criteria were primary research studies that reported the views of people who were eligible for but had not attended an NHS Health Check. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Reasons for not attending included lack of awareness or knowledge, misunderstanding the purpose of the NHS Health Check, aversion to preventive medicine, time constraints, difficulties with access to general practices, and doubts regarding pharmacies as appropriate settings. The findings particularly highlight the need for improved communication and publicity around the purpose of the NHS Health Check programme and the personal health benefits of risk factor detection.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 13 28%
Student > Bachelor 8 17%
Student > Master 6 13%
Researcher 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Other 11 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 16 34%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 19%
Psychology 3 6%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 5 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 10 July 2018.
All research outputs
#566,518
of 13,458,925 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#293
of 2,903 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,294
of 387,836 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#13
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,458,925 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 2,903 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 387,836 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.