Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26264351›Full record

ReviewImplementation science : IS2015

Narrative review of models and success factors for scaling up public health interventions.

Andrew J Milat, Adrian Bauman, Sally Redman

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Implementation science : IS, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06608589 (CONSTELLATIONS Living Lab), which is not on this map. Cited by 200 papers, 19 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
200citing papers in PubMed, 19 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06608589 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

CONSTELLATIONS Living Lab: Development, Implementation and Evaluation of a Patient-oriented Quality Improvement Program Targeting Care Transitions of Older Adults Living with Major Neurocognitive Disorders and Their Caregivers.

TypeinterventionalSponsorLaval UniversityRan2023 to 2026Enrolled700ConditionsAlzheimer Disease, Dementia, Neurocognitive DeclineArmsCoMPAS+ MNCDs Program - Quality improvement program targeting the care transitions of patients living with a major neurocognitive disorder and their caregivers
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

200 citing papers in PubMed, 19 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. How effective are physical activity interventions when they are scaled-up: a systematic review.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2021
    Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Trial

140 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Andrew J MilatSchool of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. andrew.milat@doh.health.nsw.gov.au.
Adrian BaumanSchool of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. adrian.bauman@sydney.edu.au.
Sally RedmanSax Institute, Sydney, Australia. Sally.Redman@saxinstitute.org.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo maximise the impact of public health research, research interventions found to be effective in improving health need to be scaled up and delivered on a population-wide basis. Theoretical frameworks and approaches are useful for describing and understanding how effective interventions are scaled up from small trials into broader policy and practice and can be used as a tool to facilitate effective scale-up. The purpose of this literature review was to synthesise evidence on scaling up public health interventions into population-wide policy and practice, with a focus on the defining and describing frameworks, processes and methods of scaling up public health initiatives.

methodsThe review involved keyword searches of electronic databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EBM Reviews and Google Scholar between August and December 2013. Keywords included 'scaling up' and 'scalability', while the search terms 'intervention research', 'translational research', 'research dissemination', 'health promotion' and 'public health' were used to focus the search on public health approaches. Studies included in the review were published in English from January 1990 to December 2013 and described processes, theories or frameworks associated with scaling up public health and health promotion interventions.

resultsThere is a growing body of literature describing frameworks for scaling health interventions, with the review identifying eight frameworks, the majority of which have an explicit focus on scaling up health action in low and middle income country contexts. Key success factors for scaling up included the importance of establishing monitoring and evaluation systems, costing and economic modelling of intervention approaches, active engagement of a range of implementers and the target community, tailoring the scaled-up approach to the local context, the use of participatory approaches, the systematic use of evidence, infrastructure to support implementation, strong leadership and champions, political will, well defined scale-up strategy and strong advocacy.

conclusionsEffective scaling up requires the systematic use of evidence, and it is essential that data from implementation monitoring is linked to decision making throughout the scaling up process. Conceptual frameworks can assist both policy makers and researchers to determine the type of research that is most useful at different stages of scaling up processes.

Indexed as

Capacity BuildingHumansModels, OrganizationalProgram DevelopmentProgram EvaluationPublic Health Administration

Identifiers

PMID26264351
PMCPMC4533941

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.