E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSEven when healthy, some people religiously head to the doctor every year for a physical exam, which is often covered by health insurance.
But a new review from Danish researchers concludes there is little benefit to such routine exams on healthy people.
The researchers analyzed information from 183,000 people who took part in 14 trials carried out in Europe and the United States. In all the trials, participants were randomly assigned to either receive a routine health check — involving screening tests, a physical exam, or advice about lifestyle changes — or not receive one.
Results showed patients who received routine health checks were just as likely to die over a nine-year period compared with those who did not receive health checks. Routine health checks also had no effect on hospital admission rates, patient worry, referrals to specialists or time off work.
The findings suggest "general health checks are unlikely to be beneficial," the researchers write in the October issue of the journal the Cochrane Library.
The study's overall conclusions agree with those of previous research, which has found little evidence that annual physicals have any value, said Dr. Doug Campos-Outcalt, chairman of Family, Community and Preventive Medicine at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, who was not involved in the study.
"A [yearly] physical exam is a pretty meaningless thing to have done," Campos-Outcalt said.
However, going to the doctor for a specific screening test or vaccine is another matter. In these cases, doctors' visits are beneficial for healthy people, Campos-Outcalt said. But he added that many screening tests, including colonoscopies and mammograms, do not need to be performed every year.
Eliminating annual physicals would save money partly because it would reduce unnecessary testing, Campos-Outcalt said.
Making a habit of going to the doctor every year may be easier for some people to remember than going every four or five years, Campos-Outcalt said, but electronic health records and patient reminders could solve that problem.
People with conditions such as high blood pressure or diabetes may see their doctor yearly, or more frequently, depending on the severity of their condition, Campos-Outcalt said.
Routine health checks may not have a benefit because doctors are able to identify health problems or disease risk factors when they see their patients for other reasons, the researchers said.
Because some of the trials in the new study took place many years ago, in the '60s and '70s, the findings may be less applicable to today's health care settings, the researchers said. Of the 14 studies, six started in the 1960s, three in the 1970s, two in the 1980s and three in the 1990s.
More stories from MyHealthNewsDaily:
Leave a Comment:
Annual checkups are another way for doctors to make money. They see you, they decide you're overdue for some invasive test and schedule you to come back in two weeks, you go for the test and they schedule you in another week so they can discuss the results, or they try to pin an illness on you - slightly high blood pressure - go on a diet and come back in three months for another check. Your cholesterol is a bit high, go on a diet and come back in three months. You're overweight, lose ten pounds and come back in three months...etc. How else can they pay their rent?
The physicals don't really check for much. It would be much better to have a blood test and urine test once a year which can disclose problems from diabetes to vitamin and mineral deficiencies to possible cancers.
Specific tests can also help motivate you to do more by giving you confidence you can handle more exercise. In 2011 I started to get back into shape and bought a GPS watch that measures speed, distance, heart rate, etc. and you can put the data into a computer program that organizes it. I wanted to begin bicycling for health but showed my doctor the printout and that my heart rate was rising too high just walking up hills. He said that info would justify a full range of heart tests: so I spent three days at a cardiologist's office getting a sonogram test, a radioactive dye test, and a treadmill test that showed my heart was ok.
the physicals don't really check for much. I do have frequent tests done since my insurance has low copays for them. Recently, at 62, it was determined I have borderline glaucoma, which I can't visually detect, and was prescribed cheap, generic eye drops to keep it at that level. Most men won't get tested for it until their vision begins to deteriorate and they want to know what's wrong. So there's an example where testing is clearly worthwhile. If physicals included things like eye tests, colonoscopies every so many years, heart treadmill tests, and a blood test - as they really should - then I think they'd be clearly worthwhile.
I recently read an article about how sonographers can detect certain ailments before a general practitioner, and without any invasive techniques.
This sort of growing technology is fascinating to me. I'm recommending to my daughter that she considers sonography as a career move, so now we are looking for respected ultrasound technician schools in South Dakota as well as accredited ultrasound tech schools in Iowa.