PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Liss, David T.
AU  - Uchida, Toshiko
AU  - Wilkes, Cheryl L.
AU  - Radakrishnan, Ankitha
AU  - Linder, Jeffrey A.
TI  - General Health Checks in Adult Primary Care: A Review
AID  - 10.1101/2021.02.12.21251649
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.02.12.21251649
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/13/2021.02.12.21251649.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/13/2021.02.12.21251649.full
AB  - Importance General health checks—also known as general medical exams, periodic health evaluations, checkups, or wellness visits—to identify and prevent disease are extremely common in adult primary care. Although general health checks are often expected and advocated by patients, clinicians, payers, and health systems, others question their value. The current evidence was updated and recommendations provided for conducting general health checks in adults.Observations Randomized trials and observational studies with control groups from prior systematic reviews and an updated literature review through December 2020 were included. Out of 19 included randomized trials (906 to 59,616 participants; follow-up, 1 to 30 years), 5 evaluated a single general health check and 7 evaluated annual health checks. All of 12 included observational studies (240 to 471,415 participants; follow-up, cross-sectional to 5 years) evaluated a single general health check. General health checks were generally not associated with decreased mortality, cardiovascular events, or cardiovascular disease incidence. For example, in the South-East London Screening Study (n=7,229), adults age 40 to 64 who were invited to two health checks over two years experienced no 8-year mortality benefit (6% overall). However, general health checks were associated with increased detection of chronic diseases, such as depression and hypertension; moderate improvements in controlling risk factors such as blood pressure and cholesterol; increased clinical preventive service uptake, such as colorectal and cervical cancer screening; and improvements in patient-reported outcomes, such as quality of life and self-rated health. General health checks were sometimes associated with modest improvements in health behaviors such as physical activity and diet. For example, in the OXCHECK trial (n=4121), fewer intervention participants exercised less than once per month (68% versus 71%). Potential adverse effects in individual studies included an increased risk of stroke and increased mortality attributed to increased completion of advanced directives.Conclusions and Relevance General health checks were not associated with reduced mortality or cardiovascular events, but were associated with increased chronic disease recognition and treatment; risk factor control, preventive service uptake, and patient-reported outcomes. Primary care teams may reasonably offer general health checks, especially for groups at high risk of overdue preventive services, uncontrolled risk factors, low self-rated health, or poor connection to primary care.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo funding source had a role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Dr. Liss is supported by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R18DK110741; R34DK114773), Health Resources & Services Administration/Bureau of Health Professions (UH1HP29963), and United HealthCare Services. Dr. Linder is supported by a contract from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (HHSP233201500020I) and grants from the National Institute on Aging (R33AG057383, R33AG057395, P30AG059988, R01AG069762), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS026506, R01HS028127), and the Peterson Center on Healthcare.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This project does not meet either DHHS or FDA definitions for Human Subject Research and was therefore exempt of institutional review board oversight.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesDr. Liss had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.