You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Public health
Research
Views of commissioners, managers and healthcare professionals on the NHS Health Check programme: a systematic review
  1. Katie Mills1,
  2. Emma Harte2,
  3. Adam Martin3,
  4. Calum MacLure2,
  5. Simon J Griffin1,4,
  6. Jonathan Mant1,
  7. Catherine Meads5,
  8. Catherine L Saunders1,
  9. Fiona M Walter1,
  10. Juliet A Usher-Smith1
  1. 1The Primary Care Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
  2. 2RAND Europe, Westbrook Centre, Cambridge, UK
  3. 3Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
  4. 4MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge, UK
  5. 5Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Juliet A Usher-Smith; jau20{at}medschl.cam.ac.uk

Abstract

Objective 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.

Design A systematic review of surveys and interview studies with a descriptive analysis of quantitative data and thematic synthesis of qualitative data.

Data sources 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.

Inclusion criteria Primary research reporting views of commissioners, managers or healthcare professionals on the NHS Health Check programme and its implementation in practice.

Results 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.

Conclusions 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.

  • NHS health check
  • healthcare professional views
  • systematic review

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018606

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors KM synthesised and interpreted the findings and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. EH screened articles for inclusion, extracted and synthesised the qualitative data, interpreted the findings and critically revised the manuscript. CMa extracted and synthesised the qualitative data and critically revised the manuscript. AM screened articles for inclusion, interpreted the findings and critically revised the manuscript. CS, CMe, FW, SG and JM developed the protocol, interpreted the findings and critically revised the manuscript. JU-S developed the protocol, screened articles for inclusion, extracted and synthesised the quantitative and qualitative data, interpreted the findings and wrote the first draft of the manuscript.

    • Funding This work was funded by a grant from Public Health England. JU-S and KM are funded by a Cancer Research UK/BUPA Foundation Cancer Prevention Fellowship (C55650/A21464) and FW by an NIHR Clinician Scientist award. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. All researchers were independent of the funding body, and the funder had no role in data collection, analysis and interpretation of data; writing of the report; or decision to submit the article for publication.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data sharing statement All data are available from the reports or authors of the primary research. No additional data are available.