GPs must redesign Health Check programme if they want it to work, conference hears:
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health checks on all people over 40 in GP surgeries can work—but only if they are redesigned and locally driven, a Westminster Health Forum heard on 16 July. The Health Check programme, first introduced in 2009 when Gordon Brown was prime minister, has been widely criticised as a waste of GPs’ time, and in May this year the Royal College of General Practitioners called for it to be discontinued until robust evidence of its effectiveness is available. Azhar Farooqi, co-chair of the Leicester City clinical commissioning group (CCG), told the London meeting that Health Checks, as originally conceived, did not work. “Uptake was very low, with only 8% of practices achieving targets,” he said. “More than a quarter of GP surgeries failed to do any checks at all, and for every six invitations mailed to those aged over 40, only one turned up for the check. In Leicester our uptake was really low.” …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.038 | 0.039 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".