Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/21209
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorDryden, Ruthen_UK
dc.contributor.authorWilliams, Brianen_UK
dc.contributor.authorMcCowan, Colinen_UK
dc.contributor.authorThemessl-Huber, Markusen_UK
dc.date.accessioned2014-11-05T23:25:55Z-
dc.date.available2014-11-05T23:25:55Z-
dc.date.issued2012-08en_UK
dc.identifier.other723en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/21209-
dc.description.abstractBackground: General and preventive health checks are a key feature of contemporary policies of anticipatory care. Ensuring high and equitable uptake of such general health checks is essential to ensuring health gain and preventing health inequalities. This literature review explores the socio-demographic, clinical and social cognitive characteristics of those who do and do not engage with general health checks or preventive health checks for cardiovascular disease. Methods: An exploratory scoping study approach was employed. Databases searched included the British Nursing Index and Archive, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). Titles and abstracts of 17463 papers were screened; 1171 papers were then independently assessed by two researchers. A review of full text was carried out by two of the authors resulting in 39 being included in the final review. Results: Those least likely to attend health checks were men on low incomes, low socio-economic status, unemployed or less well educated. In general, attenders were older than non-attenders. An individual's marital status was found to affect attendance rates with non-attenders more likely to be single. In general, white individuals were more likely to engage with services than individuals from other ethnic backgrounds. Non-attenders had a greater proportion of cardiovascular risk factors than attenders, and smokers were less likely to attend than non-smokers. The relationship between health beliefs and health behaviours appeared complex. Non-attenders were shown to value health less strongly, have low self-efficacy, feel less in control of their health and be less likely to believe in the efficacy of health checks. Conclusion: Routine health check-ups appear to be taken up inequitably, with gender, age, socio-demographic status and ethnicity all associated with differential service use. Furthermore, non-attenders appeared to have greater clinical need or risk factors suggesting that differential uptake may lead to sub-optimal health gain and contribute to inequalities via the inverse care law. Appropriate service redesign and interventions to encourage increased uptake among these groups is required.en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherBioMed Centralen_UK
dc.relationDryden R, Williams B, McCowan C & Themessl-Huber M (2012) What do we know about who does and does not attend general health checks? Findings from a narrative scoping review. BMC Public Health, 12, Art. No.: 723. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-723en_UK
dc.rights© 2012 Dryden et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.en_UK
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/en_UK
dc.subjectHealth checksen_UK
dc.subjectScreeningen_UK
dc.subjectPublic healthen_UK
dc.subjectInequalitiesen_UK
dc.subjectPrimary careen_UK
dc.titleWhat do we know about who does and does not attend general health checks? Findings from a narrative scoping reviewen_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/1471-2458-12-723en_UK
dc.citation.jtitleBMC Public Healthen_UK
dc.citation.issn1471-2458en_UK
dc.citation.volume12en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereeden_UK
dc.type.statusVoR - Version of Recorden_UK
dc.author.emailbrian.williams@stir.ac.uken_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Dundeeen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationNMAHPen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Dundeeen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Dundeeen_UK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000311958600001en_UK
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-84865538697en_UK
dc.identifier.wtid614537en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0003-0000-4354en_UK
dcterms.dateAccepted2012-08-31en_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2014-11-05en_UK
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_UK
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_UK
local.rioxx.authorDryden, Ruth|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorWilliams, Brian|0000-0003-0000-4354en_UK
local.rioxx.authorMcCowan, Colin|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorThemessl-Huber, Markus|en_UK
local.rioxx.projectInternal Project|University of Stirling|https://isni.org/isni/0000000122484331en_UK
local.rioxx.freetoreaddate2014-11-05en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/|2014-11-05|en_UK
local.rioxx.filenameBMC Public Health 2012b.pdfen_UK
local.rioxx.filecount1en_UK
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
BMC Public Health 2012b.pdfFulltext - Published Version565.32 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is protected by original copyright



A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.