General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease

  • By: Stephanie Thompson & Marcello Tonelli
  • On: October 09, 2012, 14:23
thumbnail image: General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease

Since the latter half of the 20th century, technological advances in modern medicine and a growing emphasis on preventive care have led to increased enthusiasm for screening in apparently healthy people. In primary care practice, the general health check (also termed periodic health evaluation or routine medical examination) is the usual mechanism used to screen asymptomatic people for disease. Although widely practiced, there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes a general health check; screening may occur at variable frequencies and include a spectrum of diagnostic maneuvers ranging from physical examination to invasive procedures. Despite this variability, all general health checks share a common goal: to reduce morbidity and mortality by detecting disease or modifiable risk factors at an earlier stage—implicitly assuming that this will improve clinical outcomes compared with waiting until symptoms develop.

Although general health checks are popular, recent debate has focused on their unintended consequences, including overdiagnosis, which is the detection of disease that (if left undetected) would not have affected the quantity or quality of an individual's life. Abnormal screening results can also lead to further investigations and accompanying risks: anxiety or psychological distress; lost income due to work absences; difficulties securing insurance; and increased healthcare costs.

General health checks are not widely recommended by national expert panels. The Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination recommended against the annual general health check in 1979,[1] and similar guidance from the United States Preventative Service Task Force followed in 1989.[2] Instead, both bodies recommended focused health checks guided by patient-specific risk factors. Based on available evidence of efficacy, as well as acceptability to patients and healthcare costs, the Canadian Task Force recommended a limited number of screening tests and at variable intervals.[1] Recommendations were made according to the patient's age and sex, and were further qualified with a list of tests that should only be offered in high-risk patients.

Concerns about overdiagnosis notwithstanding (and despite the national guidelines), general health checks are considered by physicians and the public as both necessary and recommended.[3-6] In 2009, the routine general health check was one of the two most common reasons patients visited their doctor in Canada and the United States.[7,8] Japan has a national program that includes mass screening for all adults,[9] and the United Kingdom has recently implemented routine screening for several major diseases in adults ages 40 to 74.[10]

Studies have reported both patient and physician factors as drivers of general health checks.[3,11] In one study, routine screening was viewed by patients as less of a choice and more of an obligation to one's health and family.[5] Another survey identified relationship building and the potential benefits of preventive care as the major reasons why primary care physicians continued to offer general health checks.[6]

The much-needed Cochrane Review by Krogsbøll and colleagues in the October 2012 issue of The Cochrane Library evaluates the benefits and harms of general health checks in asymptomatic adults.[12] The review only included randomized trials studying more than one screening intervention in multiple organ systems, and excluded those enrolling only older populations (people aged over 65 years). All studies evaluated asymptomatic populations that were unselected for disease or risk factors. The interventions studied varied substantially between trials, and used a combination of tests such as health questionnaires, physical examination, blood assays, imaging, stool testing, and assessment of cardiovascular risk factors. All studies compared groups who received general health checks with groups who did not. The review is noteworthy because it focuses on patient-relevant outcomes such as all-cause and disease-specific mortality, as well as morbidity, hospitalization, patient worry, self-reported health, and cost.

Sixteen randomized studies from primary care or community settings were included; 14 studies (182,880 participants) had outcome data available for analysis. Of the study participants offered screening, a median of 82% (range 50% to 90%) underwent screening at the first round. Nine studies reported on mortality, with a follow-up of 4 to 22 years. The main conclusion from the review is that general health checks in the community setting do not reduce overall or disease-specific mortality. The relative risk of death was 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.95, 1.03), and results were consistent across studies and in a number of sensitivity and subgroup analyses.

General health checks either had no effect on other outcomes (patient worry, unscheduled physician visits, hospital admissions, and absences from work), or estimates of effect were unreliable (self-reported health, disability). Due to missing or unreliable data, the authors could not estimate costs, harms, or the use of follow-up medications and testing as the result of screening. Screening resulted in a high proportion of abnormal test results and probably increased the number of new diagnoses, although these results were poorly reported in the included studies. Given the lack of overall benefit, this may indicate that general health checks promote overdiagnosis rather than detecting clinically relevant abnormalities. Krogsbøll et al reiterate that the potential for harm is likely to exceed the potential for benefit when screening is implemented in a population where the overall risk of an unfavorable outcome is low.

The review's rigorous methods and focus on large randomized trials with long follow-up periods tend to increase confidence in its findings. However, because the majority of the included studies were unblinded with considerable loss to follow-up, analyses of outcomes other than death and hospitalization may be subject to bias. In addition, the ability of long-term studies to correctly estimate the effect of screening on mortality, given improvements in diagnosis and treatment over time, have been questioned.[13] This latter point is important, as nine of the 14 studies analyzed by Krogsbøll et al were initiated prior to 1980, and the most recent was initiated in 1992. However, most included studies evaluated basic screening maneuvers that have changed little in the interim, such as height, visual acuity, weight, blood pressure, blood work, physical examination, urinalysis, and questionnaires aimed at establishing risk factors. It is possible that advances in the treatment of diseases or risk factors identified by screening may have improved the benefits associated with general health checks over time. The potential impact of any such advances at the population level may be greatest for those directed at reducing cardiovascular risk: data from the forthcoming Inter99 study (a randomized trial initiated in the late 1990s and addressing this issue in approximately 60,000 patients) should help to confirm or refute this hypothesis.

The results of this review are consistent with a previous systematic review by Boulware et al that also evaluated the benefits and harms of general health checks.[13] The Boulware review differed in its definition of the general health check, included observational studies, and analyzed fewer randomized trials. Despite these differences, the authors of both reviews reported that general health checks had no effect on mortality, disability and hospitalizations compared with usual care. However, the two reviews drew different conclusions on the overall benefit of screening. Boulware et al did not emphasize the lack of benefit of general health checks on clinical outcomes, instead concluding that such screening is beneficial because it improves the delivery of preventative health care and decreases patient worry. The Krogsbøll review identified two trials that found no benefit on reducing worry whereas Boulware et al identified one randomized trial that found benefit.

How should practitioners use the findings of Krogsbøll et al? Although available trials have limitations, there is no convincing evidence that general health checks are beneficial. Since patients who seek or are willing to undergo routine screening are generally healthier than those who are not[3] (indicating that general health checks are least likely to reach those who could benefit the most), and because most people do not receive interventions that are known to be beneficial,[14] general health checks do not appear to be a wise use of scarce healthcare resources. Heeding the Canadian recommendations (made more than 30 years ago) to abandon routine health checks would save money that could be better used by population-level interventions supported by effective health policy, such as the campaigns to reduce dietary sodium in Finland and the United Kingdom.[15,16]

On the other hand, this important review should not be interpreted as nihilistic; it focuses on the screening of asymptomatic people and does not apply to interventions prompted by clinical judgment or patient concern. For all studies in the review, diagnostic testing and treatments were undoubtedly offered to participants in the control groups for these reasons, and probably improved outcomes while reducing the apparent effect of the intervention. Practitioners should continue to investigate and treat patients with symptoms or clinical clues to underlying disease or its risk factors. When contemplating screening, practitioners should focus on tests that are targeted to the patient's age, sex, and specific risk factors, and that are supported by high-quality evidence. All screening tests (general health checks or focused screenings based on age, sex, or specific risk factors) have potential for benefits and harms, so consideration of patient preferences is critical, especially for those tests where such preferences vary between individuals or where the overall benefit:harm ratio is less favorable. Future research should determine: the best way to facilitate the sometimes challenging discussions with patients about preferences, benefit, and harm; how to communicate nuanced messages about the advantages and disadvantages of screening to the public; and how to increase the uptake of beneficial targeted screening tests in primary care practice. Of course, better evidence is also needed on the best way to screen for common diseases and their risk factors—and how to optimize the benefit:harm ratio and cost effectiveness.

1Stephanie Thompson MD 2Marcello Tonelli MD SM

1StephanieThompson@med.ualberta.ca, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Canada.

2mtonelli@ualberta.ca, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Canada.

MT is an Alberta Innovates-Health Solutions Population Health Scholar and Government of Canada Research Chair. He is the chair of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, but the views in this editorial are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Task Force.

How to cite: Thompson S, Tonelli M. General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease [editorial]. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012 17 Oct;10:ED000047 http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/details/editorial/2723031/General-health-checks-in-adults-for-reducing-morbidity-and-mortality-from-diseas.html (accessed Day Month Year).

References:

1. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. The periodic health examination.. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1979;121(9):1193‒254. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1704686 (accessed 15 October 2012).

2. US Preventative Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventative services: an assessment of the effectiveness of 169 interventions. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1989. Available at http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/p0000109/p0000109.asp (accessed 15 October 2012).

3. van Walraven C, Goel V, Austin P. Why are investigations not recommended by practice guidelines ordered at the periodic health examination? Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2000;6(2):215‒24. DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2753.2000.00245.x

4. Oboler SK, Prochazka AV, Gonzales R, Xu S, Anderson RJ. Public expectations and attitudes for annual physical examinations and testing. Annals of Internal Medicine 2002;136(9):652‒9.

5. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Fowler FJ, Jr., Welch HG. Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States. JAMA 2004;291(1):71‒8. DOI:10.1001/jama.291.1.71

6. Prochazka AV, Lundahl K, Pearson W, Oboler SK, Anderson RJ. Support of evidence-based guidelines for the annual physical examination: a survey of primary care providers. Archives of Internal Medicine 2005;165(12):1347‒52. DOI:10.1001/archinte.165.12.1347

7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Ambulatory care use and physician visits. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/docvisit.htm (accessed 27 September 2012).

8. IMS Brogan. Disease dynamics in 2010: insight and outlook from IMS Health. Canadian Pharmaceutical Marketing 2010 April:35‒6. Available at http://stacommunications.com/journals/cpm/2010/04-April-2010/04CPM_035.pdf (accessed 15 October 2012).

9. Kohro T, Furui Y, Mitsutake N, et al. The Japanese national health screening and intervention program aimed at preventing worsening of the metabolic syndrome. International Heart Journal 2008;49(2):193‒203. DOI:10.1536/ihj.49.193

10. Dalton AR, Soljak M. The Nationwide systematic prevention of cardiovascular disease: the UK's health check programme. Journal of Ambulatory Care Management 2012;35(3):206‒15. DOI:10.1097/JAC.0b013e318240be9d

11. Sirovich BE, Woloshin S, Schwartz LM. Too little? Too much? Primary care physicians' views on US health care: a brief report. Archives of Internal Medicine 2011;171(17):1582‒5. DOI:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.437

12. Krogsbøll LT, Jørgensen KJ, Grønhøj Larsen C, Gøtzsche PC. General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012 Oct 17;(10):CD009009. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD009009.pub2

13. Boulware LE, Marinopoulos S, Phillips KA, et al. Systematic review: the value of the periodic health evaluation. Annals of Internal Medicine 2007;146(4):289‒300.

14. McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine 2003;348(26):2635‒45. DOI:10.1056/NEJMsa022615

15. He FJ, MacGregor GA. A comprehensive review on salt and health and current experience of worldwide salt reduction programmes. Journal of Human Hypertension 2009;23(6):363‒84. DOI:10.1038/jhh.2008.144

16. Holland W. Periodic health examination: a brief history and critical assessment. Eurohealth 2009;15(4):16‒20. Available at http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/83990/Eurohealth15_4.pdf (accessed 15 October 2012).

Competing interests

The authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available upon request) and declare: (1) no receipt of payment or support in kind for any aspect of the article; (2) no financial relationships with any entities that have an interest related to the submitted work; (3) that the authors/spouses/children have no financial relationships with entities that have an interest in the content of the article; and (4) that Marcello Tonelli is the Chair of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, but the authors have no other relationships or activities that could be perceived as having influenced, or giving the appearance of potentially influencing, what was written in the submitted work are declared.

Image credit: Gustoimages/Science Photo Library

Contact the Editor in Chief, Dr David Tovey (dtovey@cochrane.org): Feedback on this editorial and proposals for future editorials are welcome.

The Cochrane Library - Independent high-quality evidence for health care decision making

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. All rights reserved