Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Effectiveness of the population-based 'check your health preventive programme' conducted in a primary care setting: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial [with consumer summary]
Bjerregaard A-L, Dalsgaard EM, Bruun NH, Norman K, Witte DR, Stovring H, Maindal HT, Sandbaek A
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2022 Jan;76(1):24-31
clinical trial
3/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: No; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: No; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

BACKGROUND: Health checks have been suggested as an early detection approach aiming at lowering the risk of chronic disease development. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a health check programme offered to the general population, aged 30 to 49 years. METHODS: The entire population aged 30 to 49 years (N = 26 216) living in the municipality of Randers, Denmark, was invited to a health check during 5 years. A pragmatic household cluster-randomised controlled trial was conducted in 10,505 citizens. The intervention group (IG, N = 5,250) included citizens randomised to the second year and reinvited in the 5th year. The comparison group (CG, N = 5,255) included citizens randomised to the 5th year. Outcomes were modelled cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk; self-reported physical activity (PA) and objectively measured cardio respiratory fitness (CRF); self-rated health (short-form 12 (SF-12)), self-rated mental health (SF-12_Mental Component Score (MCS)) and, registry information on sick-leave and employment. Due to low participation, we compared groups matched on propensity scores for participation when reinvited. RESULTS: Participation in the first health check was 51% (N = 2,698) in the IG and 40% (N = 2,120) in the CG. In the IG 26% (N = 1,340) participated in both the first and second health checks. No intervention effects were found comparing IG and CG. Mean differences were (95% CI): modelled CVD risk: -0.052 (95% CI -0.107 to 0.003)%, PA: -0.156 (-0.331 to 0.019) days/week with 30 min moderate PA, CRF: 0.133 (-0.560 to 0.826) mL O2/min/kg, SF-12: -0.003 (-0.032 to 0.026), SF-12_MCS: 0.355 (-0.423 to 1.132), sick leave periods >= 3 weeks: -0.004 (-0.025 to 0.017), employment: -0.004 (-0.032 to 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Preventive health checks offered to the general population, aged 30 to 49 years, had no effects on a wide range of indicators of chronic disease risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02028195.
Reproduced with permission from the BMJ Publishing Group.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help