ArticleGlobal health action2019
The pitfalls of scaling up evidence-based interventions in health.
Article in Global health action, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
58 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Economic evaluations of scaling up strategies of evidence-based health interventions: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- Evidence on Scaling in Health and Social Care: An Umbrella Review.The Milbank quarterly · 2023Pooled it
- Tools for assessing the scalability of innovations in health: a systematic review.Health research policy and systems · 2022Pooled it
- Economic and modeling evidence for tuberculosis preventive therapy among people living with HIV: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS medicine · 2021Pooled it
- A theoretically designed scale-up intervention increases adoption of an effective school nutrition program 'SWAP IT': outcomes of a randomised trial.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2026Trial
- Sustainable improvement of interprofessional care for better resident outcomes: protocol for the INTERSCALE hybrid type III effectiveness cluster-randomized trial comparing individualized and collaborative delivery of an evidence-based care model for long-term care.Implementation science : IS · 2026Trial
- Automated patient selection and care coaches to increase advance care planning for patients with cancer.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Trial
- A scoping review and systems thinking synthesis of scale-up frameworks.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Dissemination strategies for the national scale-up of a school-based physical activity initiative: insights from education and health sector partner organizations.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Preventing Pelvic Floor Disorders: A Scoping Review of Public Health Programs.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- Balancing rigor and pragmatism in health research: a guide to choosing study designs for real-world settings.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Review
- How is health equity considered in scale-up guidance? A scoping review of process models for scaling public health innovations.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Equity considerations when making decisions to scale-up health interventions: a review and analysis of scalability assessment resources.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2026Review
- Implementation priorities in Australian community pharmacy: A semi-structured survey of Australian pharmacists.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026Article
- Expériences et perceptions de la mise à l'échelle d'une intervention de santé publique: entretiens auprès d'une variété d'acteurs français.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2026Article
- Structural models for spreading and scaling digital health initiatives: A scoping review protocol.PloS one · 2026Article
- Health Action in ScHools for a Thriving Adolescent Generation (HASHTAG): a feasibility trial of a school-based intervention for mental health promotion and prevention among adolescents in South Africa.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2026Article
- Article
- Capturing the wider benefits from football participation: a social return on investment (SROI) evaluation of a community based football intervention.BMC public health · 2025Article
- From intervention studies to national programs, what are the favoring and hindering factors? a scoping review.BMC public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Policy-makers worldwide are increasingly interested in scaling up evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to larger populations, and implementation scientists are developing frameworks and methodologies for achieving this. But scaling-up does not always produce the desired results. Why not? We aimed to enhance awareness of the various pitfalls to be anticipated when planning scale-up. In lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the scale-up of health programs to prevent or respond to outbreaks of communicable diseases has been occurring for many decades. In high-income countries, there is new interest in the scaling up of interventions that address communicable and non-communicable diseases alike. We scanned the literature worldwide on problems encountered when implementing scale-up plans revealed a number of potential pitfalls that we discuss in this paper. We identified and discussed the following six major pitfalls of scaling-up EBIs: 1) the cost-effectiveness estimation pitfall, i.e. accurate cost-effectiveness estimates about real-world implementation are almost impossible, making predictions of economies of scale unreliable; 2) the health inequities pitfall, i.e. some people will necessarily be left out and therefore not benefit from the scaled-up EBIs; 3) the scaled-up harm pitfall, i.e. the harms as well as the benefits may be amplified by the scaling-up; 4) the ethical pitfall, i.e. informed consent may be a challenge on a grander scale; 5) the top-down pitfall, i.e. the needs, preferences and culture of end-users may be forgotten when scale-up is directed from above; and 6) the contextual pitfall, i.e. it may not be possible to adapt the EBIs to every context. If its pitfalls are addressed head on, scaling-up may be a powerful process for translating research data into practical improvements in healthcare in both LMICs and high-income countries, ensuring that more people benefit from EBIs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.