Responses

The NHS Health Check in England: an evaluation of the first 4 years
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Re: Health Checks

    We thank Professors Holland, Bewley and Capewell for their comments (2/2/2016) on our paper.(1) They consider that it is "...unfortunate that the study relies on routine general practice data collected by an electronic database. Although supposedly validated, there is no evidence of any check on the variability of recording by different practitioners or the validity of the Read codes used."

    From William Farr t...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Calculation error or deliberate omission?

    I read this article with great interest, as it has the potential of shaping the future political and policy contour of the NHS Health Checks programme in the UK. However, I wish to point out that there has been a calculation error, or the lack of explanation on the omission thereof in Figure 1, which shows a flowchart depicting inclusion and exclusion of people eligible for an NHS Health Check and attendance.

    T...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Health Checks
    • Walter W Holland, Emeritus Professor of Public Health Medicine
    • Other Contributors:
      • Susan Bewley, Professor of Complex Obstetrics, Kings College, London; Simon Capewell, Professor of Clinical Epidemiology, University of Liverpool

    Robson at al's recent article describes a large project with great ambitions. It provides a classical example of how political intentions can waste a vast amount of resource whilst avoiding feasible methods of assessment of effectiveness. This is reinforced by the accompanying press release, which claimed the saving of 2500 lives.

    The "evaluation" of the first 4 years gives no assessment of the value (or benefit)...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    National evaluation of NHS Health Check published previously

    Dear M Soljak and C Millett,

    You are quite correct and your paper (1) was indeed published before ours - the error occurred because we submitted our paper in May 2015 with some delay before publication this year in January 2016. I apologise for not altering the text in the light of your publication in June 2015.

    References

    1) Chang KC-M, Soljak M, Lee JT, Woringer M, Johnston D, Khunti K, Majeed...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    National evaluation of NHS Health Check published previously
    • Michael Soljak, Senior Clinical Research Fellow
    • Other Contributors:
      • Azeem Majeed, Chris Millett

    In the Strengths and Limitations section of their paper Robson et al state that (their paper) "is the first national study describing implementation of the new National Health Service (NHS) Health Check programme 2009-2012". This is incorrect, we published a similar paper in Preventive Medicine in June 2015.[1]

    1.Chang KC-M, Soljak M, Lee JT, Woringer M, Johnston D, Khunti K, Majeed A, Millett C. Coverage of a...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.