An evaluation of modifications to NHS Health Checks: A study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death globally; in the UK it contributes to a quarter of all deaths. In 2009, the UK National Health Service launched the NHS Health Check (NHSHC) programme to address CVD by assessing all adults aged between 40 and 74 years for CVD risk factors. Encouraging uptake of NHSHCs has proved challenging and areas for development have been identified nationally, prompting modifications to NHSHC practice in some localities. This protocol article describes a programme of research that will evaluate the impact of NHSHC modifications on attendance and outcomes in a large English local authority area. Modifications to NHSHC delivery (delivery of a modified NHSHC by a healthy lifestyle service rather than via general practice led delivery) and NHSHC invitation processes (implementation of text message prompts and reminders and an additional online booking option) will be evaluated. The research consists of six workstreams within a mixed methods framework: 1) Quantitative analysis of client NHSHCs records; 2) Focus groups with healthy lifestyle staff involved in coordinating and delivering the modified NHSHCs sessions; 3) Interviews with staff from pilot GP practices whose roles involve the coordination or delivery of NHSHCs; 4) Interviews with clients who have attended a healthy lifestyle service NHSHC; 5) Health economic resource and cost evaluation; 6) Data analysis, synthesis, and dissemination. The research programme's breadth and its novel nature, mean that it will provide valuable findings for those commissioning and delivering NHSHCs nationally, and for the wider public health community.
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 | 0.184 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.017 |
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".