Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30940167›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2019

Do the key functions of an intervention designed from the same specifications vary according to context? Investigating the transferability of a public health intervention in France.

Mélanie Villeval, Emilie Gaborit, Florent Berault, Thierry Lang, Michelle Kelly-Irving

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Development of an intervention theory for a mobile mammography unit research project for breast cancer screening.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2026
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Capitalisation as a boundary object in intervention research, serving knowledge production and mobilisation.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

5 authors.

Mélanie VillevalUMR1027, Université de Toulouse, UPS, Inserm, Toulouse, France.
Emilie GaboritUMR1027, Université de Toulouse, UPS, Inserm, Toulouse, France.
Florent BeraultIFERISS, Université de Toulouse, UPS, Toulouse, France.
Thierry LangUMR1027, Université de Toulouse, UPS, Inserm, Toulouse, France.
Michelle Kelly-IrvingUMR1027, Université de Toulouse, UPS, Inserm, Toulouse, France. michelle.kelly@inserm.fr.ORCID 0000-0001-5749-4791

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe processes at play in the implementation of one program in different contexts are complex and not yet well understood. In order to facilitate both the analysis and transfer of interventions, a "key functions/implementation/context" (FIC) model was developed to structure the description of public health interventions by distinguishing their potentially transferable dimensions (their "key functions") from those associated with their translation within a specific context (their "form"). It was used to describe and compare preschool preventative nutrition interventions routinely implemented across three territories, in accordance with same national specifications.

methodsThe interventions were independently described by researchers and intervention's implementers using the FIC model, during several workshops. Their key functions were then classified into 12 themes and compared to assess the extent to which the three interventions were similar.

resultsDespite being produced from the same set of specifications and having similar objectives, the key functions of the interventions in the three departments mostly reflected the same major themes, they did not overlap and were in some cases very different. In one of the three departments, the intervention was markedly different from those of the other two departments. The historical context of the interventions and the specificities of the local actors appear highly determinant of the key functions described.

conclusionsFor the interventions that we studied, some of the key functions varied greatly and translated different concepts of health education and modes of intervention to the population. It now seems vital to improve the description of interventions on the ground in order to highlight the key functions on which they are based, which still often remain implicit. The FIC model could be used to complement other models and theories focusing on the description of the implementation process, its determinants or its evaluation. Its interest is to provide a structure for joint reflection by various actors on the transferable aspects of an intervention, its form and its interactions with the context, in order ultimately to analyse or to improve its potential transferability.

Indexed as

Public Health PracticeFranceHealth EducationHumansModels, TheoreticalNutritional SciencesProgram DevelopmentProgram EvaluationContextFormInterventionsKey functionNutritionPublic healthSchoolTransferability

Identifiers

PMID30940167
PMCPMC6446375

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.