↓ Skip to main content

A qualitative investigation of non-response in NHS health checks

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Public Health, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 policy source
5 tweeters


27 Dimensions

Readers on

50 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
A qualitative investigation of non-response in NHS health checks
Published in
Archives of Public Health, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13690-015-0064-1
Pubmed ID

Naomi Ellis, Christopher Gidlow, Lisa Cowap, Jason Randall, Zafar Iqbal, Jagdish Kumar


Improving uptake of NHS Health Checks has become a priority in England, but there is a lack of data on the perceptions of programme non-attenders. This study aimed to explore how non-attenders of NHS Health Checks perceive the programme, identify reasons for non-attendance and inform strategies to improve uptake. This qualitative study involved individuals registered at four general practices in Stoke-on-Trent, UK, who had not taken up their invitation to a NHS Health Check. Semi-structured face-to-face and telephone interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim for Thematic Analysis. Interviews were completed with 19 males and 22 females (mean age 52.9 ± 8.5 years), who were socio-demographically representative of the non-attender population. Four main themes identified related to: the positive perception of the Health Check concept among non-attenders; the perceived lack of personal relevance; ineffective invitation method and appointment inconvenience were common barriers; previous experience of primary care can influence uptake. Fundamental requirements for improving uptake are that individuals recognise the personal relevance of Health Checks and that attendance is convenient. Incorporating more sophisticated and personalised risk communication as part of the invitation could increase impact and promote candidacy. Flexibility and convenience of appointments should be considered by participating general practices.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 48 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Master 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 32%
Psychology 7 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 17 34%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 August 2020.
All research outputs
of 18,644,511 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Public Health
of 648 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 234,236 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Public Health
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,644,511 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 648 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 234,236 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them