Strengthening health checks for the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease

Despite advances in prevention and management, cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) (such as stroke and heart attack) and associated metabolic conditions (including hypertension, diabetes and kidney disease) remain the leading cause of death and disability in the European Union (EU). CVDs account for one in three deaths in the EU (around 1.7 million deaths in 2022), affect approximately 62 million people, and generate over EUR 282 billion in annual costs. Geographical, gender and socio-economic inequalities in CVD outcomes further increase their social and economic burden.

Strengthening the prevention, detection and management of CVDs and their risk factors is therefore central to improving quality of life, enhancing health outcomes and supporting the sustainability of health systems. In this context, scaling up health checks, as highlighted in the Safe Hearts Plan and its flagship initiative on early detection and screening, is a key lever to reduce the overall burden of CVDs (European Commission, 2025[2]).

Health checks are an important component of broader primary prevention strategies for CVDs and can provide an entry point into appropriate care pathways. They offer an opportunity for the early detection of CVD and its risk factors, while also enabling the initiation of evidence‑based behavioural and lifestyle interventions, including healthy diets, physical activity, use of tobacco and related products and support to reduce harmful alcohol use. Crucially, the effectiveness of health checks depends on appropriate targeting of high-risk populations, the use of validated risk assessment tools, tailored lifestyle advice, and clear follow-up, referral and treatment pathways.

To maximise the impact of cardiovascular health check programmes, this policy brief focusses on five key policy considerations: (1) improving access to health check programmes and policies; (2) promoting awareness and uptake of health checks, particularly among vulnerable and high-risk populations; (3) strengthening the availability, accessibility and interoperability of health data and related infrastructure; (4) integrating health checks into patient-centred, integrated and co‑ordinated care pathways; and (5) ensuring the cost-effectiveness of health check programmes through appropriate programme design, target population definition, and high-quality referral and treatment pathways.

EU countries differ in CVD prevalence and mortality by geography, gender and socio-economic status. CVD mortality is higher in Central and Eastern Europe than in Western and Southern Europe. CVD is the leading cause of death for both men and women: men have a 43% higher age‑standardised CVD mortality rate in EU countries, while women are more likely to be misdiagnosed and undertreated (OECD, 2025[3]). Pregnancy and menopause can also increase cardiovascular risk. Socio-economically disadvantaged groups have higher CVD prevalence and mortality due to lower income and education, living in deprived areas, higher unemployment rates, and increased exposure to lifestyle and environmental risk factors (OECD/The King's Fund, 2020[4]). Health check programmes can improve prevention and early detection, particularly when supported by data-driven approaches to reach high-risk and underserved populations.

Despite the importance of health checks, access to programmes varies across the EU. At least 13 of 27 EU Member States have national health check policies or programmes targeting CVD and related chronic conditions (Table 1). Several countries with high CVD burden such as Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Poland, Romania and Lithuania have health checks in place. Approaches differ, with some countries using dedicated national programmes and others integrating risk assessment into primary care and community-based services. Given the diversity of health systems, flexible approaches are needed to improve access, target high-risk groups and reduce inequalities.

Eligibility criteria also vary: some countries use age‑based eligibility criteria, including France and Greece, others provide routine preventive check-ups for all adults, such as Austria, Germany and Slovenia. Although CVD screening for all adults can support prevention, age‑ and risk-based approaches have generally demonstrated more favourable cost-effectiveness ratios under standard thresholds, reflecting the higher yield of intervention in higher-risk populations (Crossan et al., 2016[5]; Kypridemos et al., 2018[1]). The effectiveness of targeted health checks is higher when combined with lifestyle improvement measures (Kypridemos et al., 2018[1]). However, the relative advantage of universal versus targeted approaches depends on the national context, disease burden and available resources. In countries with high CVD mortality and low population awareness of cardiovascular risk factors, broader population-based health checks may serve a dual function: identifying risk across a wider distribution and raising awareness in settings where targeted outreach alone is insufficient to reach those affected.

Some countries have introduced targeted initiatives to address these gaps. Luxembourg’s “Agir pour le Cœur des Femmes” initiative provides cardiovascular screening and awareness activities for women in vulnerable situations. Spain’s Cardiovascular Health Strategy (ESCAV) incorporates gender and equity perspectives to address differences in risk presentation and underdiagnosis among women. Ireland complemented its Chronic Disease Management Programme with the High-Risk Prevention Programme (HRPP), which provides behavioural support for high-risk individuals, including those from socio-economically deprived communities.

Early detection of modifiable risk factors – such as hypertension, dyslipidaemia and diabetes – is central to the prevention and management of CVD. Timely intervention for individuals with established conditions, including obesity and diabetes (type 1 and type 2), is also essential to reduce CVD risk. Although the underlying mechanisms differ, people living with type 1 diabetes face an even higher risk of developing CVD (Patsoukaki et al., 2025[16]).

Identifying high-risk individuals and estimating future cardiovascular events relies on screening for metabolic risk factors and risk assessment tools. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommends systematic CVD risk assessment for individuals with major vascular risk factors, including smoking, hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, raised lipid levels, obesity and family history of premature CVD. The ESC Expert Task Force recommends specific cardiometabolic health checks to detect risk early in individuals under 35 years of age, in those aged 35 to 64 years and adults aged over 65 years (ESC, 2026[17]). A life‑course approach, starting in childhood, can detect inherited and emerging risk factors early.

Despite the importance of measuring blood pressure, glucose and cholesterol, screening coverage remains incomplete across the EU (Figure 1). In 2022, blood pressure was measured within the previous year for 66% of adults aged 25‑64 and 86% of those aged 65 and over. Similarly, 84% of adults aged 25‑64 had cholesterol measured and 84% had blood glucose measured within five years. Expanding access to simple, cost-effective approaches, such as routine blood pressure and lipid testing supported by digital tools and integrated data systems, can improve detection of modifiable risk factors (Dehmer et al., 2017[18]).

Beyond overall gaps, screening coverage shows persistent gender inequalities, including lower coverage among men than women aged 25‑64 for blood pressure (62% vs. 69%), cholesterol (82% vs. 86%) and blood glucose testing (81% vs. 87%). These differences narrow among older adults.

Risk assessment tools – including WHO cardiovascular risk charts, SCORE2, HeartScore, SMART Risk Score and nationally validated tools – complement screening by identifying populations at higher risk who may require preventive interventions, including lifestyle changes and medication.1 They can also support prevention at the population level by raising awareness of cardiovascular risks, helping individuals better understand their own cardiovascular risk and make informed lifestyle decisions, and enabling healthcare providers to tailor treatment and allocate resources more efficiently. By targeting individuals with higher baseline cardiovascular risk, this approach can improve early detection and health outcomes, and has been shown to be cost-effective under specific programme conditions, including adequate follow-through on treatment and referral pathways (Crossan et al., 2016[5]; Kypridemos et al., 2018[1]). Given that socio-economic deprivation is independently associated with higher cardiovascular risk, greater disease burden, and lower uptake of preventive care, risk-targeted approaches also hold potential to reduce socio-economic inequalities in CVD outcomes (OECD, 2025[3]). However, implementation varies across countries (Akhtar et al., 2026[19]), highlighting the need to strengthen the uptake of scientifically validated tools that are appropriate for the target population and integrated into clinical pathways to support consistent, evidence‑based decision making.

Digital technologies can further support the implementation and scale‑up of risk assessment by expanding access to screening and facilitating remote delivery of preventive services, provided they are appropriately validated and integrated into care pathways. For example, the Netherlands’ Check@Home pilot combines home‑based testing with regional diagnostic assessment for individuals with positive results. Their successful use requires high-quality interoperable data, clinical validation and alignment with relevant EU regulatory frameworks. Where digital solutions tools are implemented through software, medical devices or AI systems, they should also comply with the applicable Union and national requirements according to their intended purpose and legal classification.

High-quality and interoperable health data can support the identification of eligible populations, continuity of care and the monitoring and evaluation of health-check programmes. EHR systems can make relevant clinical information available across the care pathway, while validated decision-support tools and medical devices may support individual risk assessment, monitoring and follow-up. Finland, for example, has combined linked health data and the FINRISK risk assessment tool in clinical practice for decades, while Australia uses national quality indicators to monitor cardiovascular care and identify disparities.

Digital tools can empower patients and healthcare professionals by supporting risk-factor monitoring, lifestyle management and targeted follow-up. Wearable and remote monitoring devices may support longitudinal monitoring and the detection of selected risk indicators in appropriately defined care pathways, although evidence on their effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and large‑scale integration into routine care remains limited (Comte, 2026[20]). Emerging computational and AI-based approaches such as Virtual Human Twins may in the longer term support more personalised prevention and care. Their clinical utility, generalisability, cost-effectiveness and scalability will require further evaluation before routine use in health-check programmes. Their deployment requires robust clinical validation and compliance with applicable EU regulatory frameworks, including those governing medical devices and artificial intelligence.

Data governance and interoperability barriers continue to constrain digital health implementation. Fragmented systems, incompatible formats and limited data sharing reduce the effective use of health data across care settings. Improving the quality, standardisation and, where legally permitted, linkage of data from clinical care and population-level monitoring can strengthen programme planning, follow-up and evaluation. Arrangements should clearly distinguish the use of data for individual care from their secondary use for public health monitoring, research and policy evaluation.

High-quality, linked data can improve targeting, follow-up and evaluation, while better availability of sex- and gender-disaggregated data and data on underserved populations is key to addressing inequalities. EU-wide approaches, such as a cardiovascular inequality registry, have been suggested to strengthen evidence and support targeted action (Global Heart Hub, 2025[21]). Common digital standards, investment in interoperable and secure systems, transparent data governance, data protection, cybersecurity, accessibility and digital health literacy are important to ensure that digitalisation contributes to CVD prevention in a proportionate, evidence‑based, trustworthy and measurable manner. At EU level, Regulation (EU) 2025/327 on the European Health Data Space establishes a common framework for the primary and secondary use of electronic health data. Once progressively implemented, it can support access to relevant electronic health data for continuity of care and enable the secure secondary use of data for research, innovation, public health, policymaking and the evaluation of prevention strategies (European Commission, 2026[22]).

Integrated, person-centred care pathways are essential to ensure that health checks translate into appropriate follow-up care, treatment and rehabilitation. Comprehensive design of the entire care pathway – from screening and risk identification to intervention, follow-up care and rehabilitation – is critical to maximise the effectiveness of health checks. This requires personalised prevention, including structured health counselling and ongoing support for lifestyle change (Kypridemos et al., 2018[1]). Primary care and other first-line providers, including nurses and pharmacists, play a central role, particularly given the high prevalence of multimorbidity among people with CVD. A broader cardiometabolic approach – linking CVD health checks with the prevention and management of related chronic conditions – combined with a life‑course approach can further strengthen risk identification and support more integrated care (OECD, 2025[3]).

Some countries are embedding health checks within broader integrated strategies for chronic disease prevention and management to strengthen co‑ordinated, longitudinal care. Spain’s “Care for Chronic Health Conditions in Children, Adolescents and Adults” promotes a comprehensive, interdisciplinary and integrated approach to the prevention and management of chronic diseases from childhood through adulthood, ensuring personalised care and co‑ordination across levels of care and between healthcare professionals (Ministerio de Sanidad, 2025[23]). Despite progress in some countries, important gaps persist across the care continuum, reflected in fragmented multimorbidity management, suboptimal medication use, frequent hospitalisation and readmissions among people with CVD and inadequate access to and utilisation of cardiac rehabilitation (Figure 2).

Health systems are often organised around single diseases, resulting in fragmented care, repeated assessments and gaps in treatment, which can lead to poorer outcomes and higher healthcare use and costs (Global Heart Hub, 2025[21]). Most people living with CVD have multiple chronic conditions, yet health services remain insufficiently integrated to manage multimorbidity. Around one‑third of people with diabetes develop cardiovascular complications (Mosenzon, 2021[26]), over 30% of those with CVD also have chronic kidney disease (Cases Amenós A, 2010[24]), and 31% of people with CVD and related clinical risk factors report depressive symptoms (OECD, 2025[3]). Population stratification tools that classify individuals according to multimorbidity and overall disease complexity can help identify people with greater care needs and support more personalised care.2

A persistent gap in care co‑ordination concerns the use of well-established cardiovascular medications. These treatments, alongside lifestyle and behavioural changes, reduce the risk of major cardiac events. Yet, many at-risk people remain untreated or undertreated. Antihypertensive treatment rates have remained broadly stable since 2010, suggesting treatment coverage has not kept pace with the growing number of people at cardiovascular risk (OECD, 2025[3]). Key therapies for chronic kidney disease remain underused, with RAAS inhibitors not used in at least 30% of patients and SGLT2 inhibitors in over 80%, despite their benefits for kidney and cardiovascular outcomes (Tangri N, 2024[27]). Although prescribing rates are typically high at hospital discharge for stroke patients, OECD data show a steep drop in prescribing 18 months after the event (OECD, 2025[3]). Addressing these gaps in initiation and continuity could improve population health and life expectancy while reducing the overall burden on health systems (Ruff, 2014[28]).

Readmissions, emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalisations remain common among people with CVD. On average, 24% of ischaemic stroke patients and 33% of congestive heart failure patients were readmitted within one year of discharge, while people with CVD are almost twice as likely to visit EDs (40% vs. 26%) and be hospitalised (28% vs. 14%) as those without CVD (OECD, 2025[3]). These adverse events highlight gaps in care co‑ordination and the need for stronger primary care to prevent avoidable hospital admissions. Australia has identified stronger co‑ordination between hospitals, primary care providers and community services, alongside multidisciplinary care, shared care planning and greater patient involvement in long-term disease management, as key strategies for reducing avoidable hospitalisations.

Cardiac rehabilitation is a core component of post-acute CVD care, yet access and participation remain uneven across countries. While 81% of European countries report having cardiac rehabilitation programmes, fewer have integrated rehabilitation into national CVD or chronic disease strategies (Turk-Adawi et al., 2019[25]). Barriers include regional disparities in service availability, poor integration into primary care, workforce shortages and limited automatic referral systems. Strengthening discharge planning, interdisciplinary care and referral pathways are crucial to improve integrated care. Expanding community-based services can further improve access to relevant specialists and continuity of care, as demonstrated in Ireland (HSE, 2024[29]; OReilly and Hanlon, 2017[30]). Similarly, Spain’s Cardiovascular Health Strategy places a strong emphasis on strengthening cardiac rehabilitation to support recovery and prevent recurrent events through patient risk stratification and co‑ordinated delivery across all levels of care (Ministry of Health, 2023[31]).

Providing financial incentives to healthcare providers can help increase screening coverage. Several EU countries already use such incentives in cancer screening programmes, and evidence shows that linking payments to screening-related performance indicators – particularly for individual providers rather than practices – can increase participation among eligible populations (OECD/European Commission, 2026[32]). This case study offers transferable lessons for strengthening participation in cardiovascular screening programmes. However, provider incentives should not be based solely on the number of tests performed or screening participation rates, but also on continuity of care, including effective follow-up of high-risk individuals, further diagnostics, health counselling, and implementation of preventive measures after screening. This is particularly important where screening is not risk-stratified, as broad-based participation can generate diagnostic demand that outpaces available capacity, leading to longer waiting times and potential crowding out of other care (OECD, 2025[3]).

Well-designed health check programmes can identify modifiable risk factors, prevent disease progression, reduce avoidable hospital admissions and lower the burden of CVD. Targeted screening of high-risk populations, informed by demographic and clinical profiles, alongside simple and accessible checks in primary care and improved awareness among patients and healthcare professionals, can support earlier detection and reduce complications (Global Heart Hub, 2024[33]).

Evidence for systematic population-level screening and general health checks show no consistent reductions in cardiovascular morbidity or mortality when the programmes are not properly targeted to a population group, leading to overdiagnosis, overtreatment, additional downstream care and unnecessary healthcare costs (Krogsbøll, Jørgensen and Gøtzsche, 2019[34]; Jørgensen et al., 2024[35]). In contrast, evidence suggests that individual-level risk detection and management can be effective and, in some cases, cost-effective, provided they are based on risk stratification and targeted towards populations with elevated cardiovascular risk (Crossan et al., 2016[5]; Kypridemos et al., 2018[1]). Nevertheless, the effectiveness remains context-specific, depending on programme design, national healthcare costs, system capacity, and the overall CVD burden, meaning results are not directly transferable across countries (Uthman et al., 2024[36]). Screening for specific conditions among people with common comorbidities has been shown to be cost-effective, for example, chronic kidney disease screening in people with diabetes or hypertension (Rokhman et al., 2024[37]). Targeting the right population groups, based on age, sex, gender, socio‑economic status, family history and clinical risk, improves value for money and reduces inequalities, but requires the availability of reliable health data and validated risk stratification tools to support accurate identification of target populations. An Irish High-Risk Prevention Programme showed improvements in weight, BMI and physical activity among socio‑economically disadvantaged populations (Broughan et al., 2024[38]). This approach should also reflect sex-related differences in cardiovascular risk, as well as the specific health needs of women across different life stages, to further improve the precision of risk stratification and prevention design.

To safeguard value, programmes should target high-risk populations, relying on validated risk prediction models, evidence‑based eligibility criteria and thresholds, and clear clinical pathways linking risk identification to appropriate follow-up and treatment.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) refers to a class of diseases that affect the heart and blood vessels. It includes conditions such as coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, rheumatic heart disease, peripheral arterial disease, and other disorders of the cardiovascular system.

Health checks are broader preventive assessments that evaluate an individual’s general health status and risk factors for disease, often combining multiple measurements such as blood pressure, cholesterol, and lifestyle indicators.

Screening programmes are the systematic application of tests to identify unrecognised disease in asymptomatic populations. They aim to detect individuals at higher risk or in the early stages of disease, enabling timely intervention.

Read the full report: OECD (2025), The State of Cardiovascular Health in the European Union, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ea7a15f4-en.

[19] Akhtar, S. et al. (2026), “Mapping and evaluation of global and country-specific cardiovascular disease risk prediction models”, Future Cardiology, pp. 1-10, https://doi.org/10.1080/14796678.2026.2645012.

[6] Austrian Social Insurance (n.d.), “Because I Love Myself. Vorsorgeuntersuchung.”, https://www.vorsorgeuntersuchung.at/ (accessed on 4 February 2026).

[38] Broughan, J. et al. (2024), “Preventing cardiovascular disease in at-risk patients: Results of a pilot behavioural health programme in general practice”, European Journal of General Practice, Vol. 30/1, https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2024.2413106.

[8] Bundesministerium für Gesundheit (n.d.), Gesundheits-Check-up, https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/checkup.html (accessed on 13 February 2026).

[24] Cases Amenós A, G. (2010), “Prevalence of chronic kidney disease in patients with or at a high risk of cardiovascular disease”, Rev Esp Cardiol, Vol. 63, https://doi.org/10.1016/s1885-5857(10)70041-4.

[12] Check@Home Consortium (n.d.), THE SCREENING PROJECT, https://checkathome.nl/research/ (accessed on 4 February 2026).

[20] Comte, V. (2026), Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Care - Navigating the Gap Between Technical Progress and Clinical Impact, Publications Office of the European Union, https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC146049.

[5] Crossan, C. et al. (2016), “Cost effectiveness of case-finding strategies for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a modelling study”, British Journal of General Practice, Vol. 67/654, pp. e67-e77, https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp16x687973.

[18] Dehmer, S. et al. (2017), “Health Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness of Asymptomatic Screening for Hypertension and High Cholesterol and Aspirin Counseling for Primary Prevention”, The Annals of Family Medicine, Vol. 15/1, pp. 23-36, https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2015.

[17] ESC (2026), Recommendations for EU-wide cardiometabolic health checks, https://www.escardio.org/news/news-room/recommendations-for-eu-wide-cardiometabolic-health-checks/.

[22] European Commission (2026), European Health Data Space Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2025/327 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2025 on the European Health Data Space and amending Directive 2011/24/EU and Regulation (EU) 2024/2847, OJ L, 2025/327, 5.3.2025., https://health.ec.europa.eu/ehealth-digital-health-and-care/european-health-data-space-regulation-ehds_en.

[2] European Commission (2025), Communication on an EU cardiovascular health plan: the Safe Hearts Plan, https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/communication-eu-cardiovascular-health-plan-safe-hearts-plan_en.

[9] European Commission (n.d.), National Public Health Prevention Programme / Cardiovascular Risks Prevention, https://reforms-investments.ec.europa.eu/projects/national-public-health-prevention-programme-cardiovascular-risks-prevention_en (accessed on 4 February 2026).

[21] Global Heart Hub (2025), Global Heart Hub Response to the EU Cardiovascular Health Plan Call for Evidence, https://globalhearthub.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/GHH-Submission-to-the-EU-Cardiovascular-Health-Plan-Call-for-Evidence_Sept11.pdf.

[33] Global Heart Hub (2024), Global Heart Hub International Roundtable Discussion on Late, Missed and Misdiagnosis of Heart Disease in Women, https://globalhearthub.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Women-and-Heart-booklet_Draft_03_090924_e-copy.pdf.

[29] HSE (2024), Community care improving health outcomes and experiences for patients across Ireland, https://about.hse.ie/news/community-care-improving-health-outcomes-experiences-patients-across-ireland/.

[10] Irish Heart Foundation (n.d.), New programme benefits those most at risk from heart disease and stroke, https://irishheart.ie/news/new-programme-benefits-those-most-at-risk-from-heart-disease-and-stroke/ (accessed on 4 February 2026).

[35] Jørgensen, T. et al. (2024), “What is the effectiveness of systematic population-level screening programmes for reducing the burden of cardiovascular diseases?”, World Health Organization, https://iris.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/6d00576d-f2b1-4ee7-a4a9-5afd6fb2e9e7/content.

[34] Krogsbøll, L., K. Jørgensen and P. Gøtzsche (2019), “General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease”, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Vol. 2019/1, https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd009009.pub3.

[11] Luxembourg Institute of Health (n.d.), YOUNG50 – Stay Healthy-Cardiovascular Risk Prevention, https://www.lih.lu/en/young-50/#:~:text=YOUNG%2050%20is%20a%20European,factors%20in%20people%20aged%2050. (accessed on 4 February 2026).

[15] Luxembourg Ministry of Health (n.d.), Acting for women’s hearts!, https://www.amicale-patients-incci.lu/ (accessed on 28 June 2026).

[7] Ministère du Travail, de la Santé et des Solidarités (n.d.), Mon Bilan Prévention, https://monbilanprevention.sante.gouv.fr/ (accessed on 4 February 2026).

[23] Ministerio de Sanidad (2025), Estrategia para el Abordaje de la Cronicidad en el Sistema Nacional de Salud: Documento de Desarrollo 2025–2028, https://www.sanidad.gob.es/areas/calidadAsistencial/estrategias/abordajeCronicidad/docs/20250704_EAC_DOCUMENTO-DESARROLLO_2025-2028_Final.pdf.

[13] Ministerstwo Zdrowia (n.d.), Take care of yourself with the My Health program, https://pacjent.gov.pl/program-moje-zdrowie (accessed on 4 February 2026).

[31] Ministry of Health (2023), The Cardiovascular Health Strategy (CVHS) of Spain’s National Health System, https://www.sanidad.gob.es/areas/calidadAsistencial/estrategias/saludCardiovascular/docs/Estrategia_salud_cardiovascular_INGLES._ACCESIBLE.pdf.

[39] Monterde, D., E. Vela and M. Clèries (2018), “The Adjusted Morbidity Groups: a new stratification tool for risk assessment”, International Journal of Integrated Care, Vol. 18/s2, p. 33, https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.s2033.

[26] Mosenzon, O. (2021), “CAPTURE: a multinational, cross-sectional study of cardiovascular disease prevalence in adults with type 2 diabetes across 13 countries”, Cardiovascular Diabetology, Vol. 20, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12933-021-01344-0.

[14] National Institute of Public Health Slovenia (n.d.), Together for Health (Skupaj za zdravje): About the programme, https://skupajzazdravje.si/en/about-the-programme/#cilji-in-financiranje (accessed on 4 February 2026).

[3] OECD (2025), The State of Cardiovascular Health in the European Union, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ea7a15f4-en.

[32] OECD/European Commission (2026), Delivering High Value Cancer Care: European Cancer Inequalities Registry Analytical Report, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/060869fe-en.

[4] OECD/The King’s Fund (2020), Is Cardiovascular Disease Slowing Improvements in Life Expectancy?: OECD and The King’s Fund Workshop Proceedings, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/47a04a11-en.

[30] OReilly, O. and D. Hanlon (2017), “Irish Integrated Care Programme for Chronic Disease - Supporting General Practice”, International Journal of Integrated Care, Vol. 17/3, p. 55, https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.3167.

[16] Patsoukaki, V. et al. (2025), “Risk differences and underlying factors of cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes versus type 1 diabetes: a longitudinal cohort study of Swedish nationwide register data”, Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol, Vol. 13, pp. 848-862, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(25)00165-2.

[37] Rokhman, M. et al. (2024), “Economic Evaluations of Screening Programs for Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review”, Value in Health, Vol. 27/1, pp. 117-128, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2023.08.003.

[28] Ruff, C. (2014), “Comparison of the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomised trials”, The Lancet, Vol. 383, pp. 955-962, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62343-0.

[1] Sheikh, A. (ed.) (2018), “Future cost-effectiveness and equity of the NHS Health Check cardiovascular disease prevention programme: Microsimulation modelling using data from Liverpool, UK”, PLOS Medicine, Vol. 15/5, p. e1002573, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002573.

[27] Tangri N, A. (2024), “Suboptimal monitoring and management in patients with unrecorded stage 3 chronic kidney disease in real-world settings: Insights from REVEAL-CKD”, Eur J Clin Invest, Vol. 54, https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.14282.

[25] Turk-Adawi, K. et al. (2019), “Cardiac Rehabilitation Availability and Density around the Globe”, EClinicalMedicine, Vol. 13, pp. 31-45, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.06.007.

[36] Uthman, O. et al. (2024), “Interventions for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: umbrella review of systematic reviews”, Health Technology Assessment, pp. 1-26, https://doi.org/10.3310/gjtr5006.