ArticleEClinicalMedicine2022
What factors influence differential uptake of NHS Health Checks, diabetes and hypertension reviews among women in ethnically diverse South London? Cross-sectional analysis of 63,000 primary care records.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ethnic differences in the burden of cardiovascular disease risk factors among adult residents of London: the TOGETHER study.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Tirzepatide and the NHS: are we creating a two-tier obesity treatment system?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
- Diet and Physical Activity Interventions for People from Minority Ethnic Backgrounds in the UK: A Scoping Review Exploring Barriers, Enablers and Cultural Adaptations.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Uptake of health checks among women has not been examined in relation to patient and General Practitioner (GP) practice level factors. We investigated patient and practice level factors associated with differential uptake of health checks. Methods: Primary care records from 44 practices in Lambeth for women aged 40-74 years old ( Findings: The mean age (IQR) of the included female sample (aged 40-74 years) was 52.9 years (45.0-59.0). Adjusted for patient-level factors (age, ethnicity, English as first language, overweight/obesity, smoking, attendance to GP practices, and co-morbidity), the odds of non-uptake of health checks were higher for Other White (OR 1.24, 95% confidence interval 1.17-1.33), and Other ethnicity (1.20, 1.07-1.35) vs. White British. It was also higher for 50-69 year olds (1.55, 1.47-1.62), 70-74 year olds (1.60, 1.49-1.72) vs. 40-49 year olds. These ORs did not change on adjustments for practice level factors (proportion of patients living in deprived areas, proportion of patients with ≥1 chronic condition, ≥3 emergency diabetes admissions annually, GP density/1000 patients, quality outcome framework score of ≥ 95%, and patient satisfaction scores of ≥80%). Non-uptake was lower for Black Caribbeans, Bangladeshis, overweight/obese patients, frequent practice attenders and comorbid patients. Interpretation: Differential uptake in health checks remained after adjustment for patient and practice level factors. Better measures of social determinants of health and of practice context are needed. Funding: NIHR Research for Patient Benefit Programme (NIHR202769).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.