Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012;7(3):e33694.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0033694. Epub 2012 Mar 30.

Regular health checks: cross-sectional survey

Affiliations

Regular health checks: cross-sectional survey

Christian Grønhøj Larsen et al. PLoS One. 2012.

Erratum in

  • PLoS One. 2012;7(9). doi:10.1371/annotation/db021c13-fba1-4ad3-8711-9bf7c00fda6b

Abstract

Objective: To investigate whether Danish providers of general health checks present a balanced account of possible benefits and harms on their websites and whether the health checks are evidence-based.

Methods and design: Cross-sectional study. The search engines Google and Jubii (Danish) were in July and August 2009 used to identify 56 websites using Danish search terms for "health check" and "health examination". The content of the websites were evaluated using a checklist with 15 officially recommended information items. All tests offered through the websites were registered. The evidence for tests offered through at least 10% of the websites was identified in structured searches using PubMed and The Cochrane Library.

Results: We found 36 different tests on 56 websites offering health checks. Twenty one tests were offered on at least 10% of the websites. Seventeen (81%) of these tests were unsupported by evidence, or there was evidence against them for screening purposes. We found evidence supporting screening using body-mass-index, blood pressure, cholesterol, and faecal occult blood testing. None of the websites mentioned possible risks or harms. The websites presented a median of 1 of the 15 information items; the highest number from any provider was 2.

Conclusions: Information from Danish providers of health checks was sparse and tests were often offered against existing evidence or despite lack of evidence. None of the included websites mentioned potential risks or harms.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

    1. Raffle A, Gray M. Screening: evidence and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
    1. Friedman GD, Collen MF, Fireman BH. Multiphasic Health Checkup Evaluation: a 16-year follow-up. J Chronic Dis. 1986;39:453–463. - PubMed
    1. Holland WW, Creese AL, D'Souza MF, Partridge JRJ, Woodall HJT, et al. A controlled trial of multiphasic screening in middle-age: results of the South-East London Screening Study. The South-East London Screening Study Group. Int J Epidemiol. 1977;6:357–363. - PubMed
    1. Theobald H, Bygren LO, Carstensen J, Hauffman M, Engfeldt P. Effects of an assessment of needs for medical and social services on long-term mortality: a randomized controlled study. Int J Epidemiol. 1998;27:194–198. - PubMed
    1. Voss H, Ravn BL. Danskernes brug af sundhedsydelser på internettet. Ugeskr Laeger. 2007;169:2318. - PubMed