Effectiveness of check-up 35 for detecting targeted diseases in Germany

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date issued

Editors

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Reuse License

Description of rights: CC-BY-4.0
Item type:Item, ZeitschriftenaufsatzAccess status: Open Access ,

Abstract

Background The Check-up 35 has been a key element of primary prevention in German general practice since 1989. However, evidence on its effectiveness in detecting target diseases remains limited. Therefore, we analyzed the detection rates of the target diseases of the Check-up 35 in a large cohort of persons treated in German primary care. Methods In a retrospective cohort study using data from 1,216 German primary care practices (IQVIA™ Disease Analyzer, 2019–2023), we compared Check-up 35 participants with non-participants via 1:5 propensity score matching. We analyzed diagnoses of arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, and chronic kidney disease (CKD) within three months post-check-up versus a random visit in controls. Medication prescriptions following diagnosis served as a secondary outcome. Results We compared 51,829 participants with 259,145 matched non-participants. Participation was associated with higher diagnosis rates: hypertension (HR 1.56), diabetes (HR 1.69), dyslipidemia (HR 3.24), and CKD (HR 2.07). The effect was especially pronounced for dyslipidemia in individuals under 40 (HR 5.10). Prescription rates after diagnosis were similar or lower in the Check-up group. Conclusion Check-up 35 is effective in early detection of key chronic diseases. Broader participation should be encouraged to improve prevention.

Description

Keywords

Citation

Published in

BMC primary care, 27, BioMed Central, London, 2026, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-026-03307-4

Relationships

Cites

Compiles

Continues

Describes

Documents

Has the metadata

Has the part

Has the translation

Has the version

Is cited by

Is compiled by

Is continued by

Is derived from

Is described by

Is documented by

Is identical to

Is metadata for

Is a new version of

Is an original form of

Is a part of

Is a previous version of

Is published in

Is referenced by

Is required by

Is reviewed by

Is a source of

Is supplemented by

Is a supplement to

Is a translation of

Is a variant form of

References

Requires

Reviews

Collections

Endorsement

Review

Supplemented By

Referenced By