Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29208000›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2017

Dynamics behind the scale up of evidence-based obesity prevention: protocol for a multi-site case study of an electronic implementation monitoring system in health promotion practice.

Kathleen P Conte, Sisse Groen, Victoria Loblay, Amanda Green, Andrew Milat, Lina Persson, Christine Innes-Hughes, Jo Mitchell, Sarah Thackway, Mandy Williams and 1 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. "We WantQualitative health research · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

11 authors.

Kathleen P ConteMenzies Centre for Health Policy, School of Public Health & The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, University of Sydney, Level 6, Charles Perkins Centre, D17, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Sisse GroenMenzies Centre for Health Policy, School of Public Health & The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, University of Sydney, Level 6, Charles Perkins Centre, D17, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Victoria LoblayMenzies Centre for Health Policy, School of Public Health & The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, University of Sydney, Level 6, Charles Perkins Centre, D17, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Amanda GreenNSW Office of Preventive Health, Liverpool Hospital, Locked Bag 7103, Liverpool BC, NSW, 1871, Australia.
Andrew MilatCentre for Epidemiology and Evidence, New South Wales Ministry of Health, 73 Miller Street, North Sydney, NSW, 2060, Australia.
Lina PerssonCentre for Epidemiology and Evidence, New South Wales Ministry of Health, 73 Miller Street, North Sydney, NSW, 2060, Australia.
Christine Innes-HughesNSW Office of Preventive Health, Liverpool Hospital, Locked Bag 7103, Liverpool BC, NSW, 1871, Australia.
Jo MitchellCentre for Population Health, New South Wales Ministry of Health, 73 Miller Street, North Sydney, NSW, 2060, Australia.
Sarah ThackwayCentre for Epidemiology and Evidence, New South Wales Ministry of Health, 73 Miller Street, North Sydney, NSW, 2060, Australia.
Mandy WilliamsSouth Western Sydney Local Health District, Locked Mail Bag 7279, Liverpool BC, NSW, 1871, Australia.
Penelope HaweMenzies Centre for Health Policy, School of Public Health & The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, University of Sydney, Level 6, Charles Perkins Centre, D17, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. penny.hawe@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2397-867X

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council GNT9100001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe effectiveness of many interventions to promote health and prevent disease has been well established. The imperative has therefore shifted from amassing evidence about efficacy to scale-up to maximise population-level health gains. Electronic implementation monitoring, or 'e-monitoring', systems have been designed to assist and track the delivery of preventive policies and programs. However, there is little evidence on whether e-monitoring systems improve the dissemination, adoption, and ongoing delivery of evidence-based preventive programs. Also, given considerable difficulties with e-monitoring systems in the clinical sector, scholars have called for a more sophisticated re-examination of e-monitoring's role in enhancing implementation.

methodsIn the state of New South Wales (NSW), Australia, the Population Health Information Management System (PHIMS) was created to support the dissemination of obesity prevention programs to 6000 childcare centres and elementary schools across all 15 local health districts. We have established a three-way university-policymaker-practice research partnership to investigate the impact of PHIMS on practice, how PHIMS is used, and how achievement of key performance indicators of program adoption may be associated with local contextual factors. Our methods encompass ethnographic observation, key informant interviews and participatory workshops for data interpretation at a state and local level. We use an on-line social network analysis of the collaborative relationships across local health district health promotion teams to explore the relationship between PHIMS use and the organisational structure of practice. DISCUSSION: Insights will be sensitised by institutional theory, practice theory and complex adaptive system thinking, among other theories which make sense of socio-technical action. Our working hypothesis is that the science of getting evidence-based programs into practice rests on an in-depth understanding of the role they play in the on-going system of local relationships and multiple accountabilities. Data will be synthesised to produce a typology to characterise local context, PHIMS use and key performance indicator achievement (of program implementation) across the 15 local health districts. Results could be used to continuously align e-monitoring technologies within quality improvement processes to ensure that such technologies enhance practice and innovation. A partnership approach to knowledge production increases the likelihood that findings will be put into practice.

Indexed as

Health Plan ImplementationChildChild, PreschoolElectronics, MedicalEvidence-Based MedicineHealth PromotionHumansInternetNew South WalesObesityProgram EvaluationResearch DesignEthnographyImplementation scienceKey performance indicatorsPartnership researchPerformance monitoringPreventionScale-up

Identifiers

PMID29208000
PMCPMC5718021

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.