Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31575331›Full record

ArticleGlobal health action2019

The pitfalls of scaling up evidence-based interventions in health.

Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun, Ali Ben Charif, Adriana Freitas, Mirjam Marjolein Garvelink, Matthew Menear, Michèle Dugas, Rhéda Adekpedjou, France Légaré

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Hervé Tchala Vignon ZomahounHealth and Social Services Systems, Knowledge Translation and Implementation component of the Quebec SPOR-SUPPORT Unit, Université Laval , Quebec , QC , Canada.
Ali Ben CharifHealth and Social Services Systems, Knowledge Translation and Implementation component of the Quebec SPOR-SUPPORT Unit, Université Laval , Quebec , QC , Canada.
Adriana FreitasCentre de recherche sur les soins et les services de première ligne - Université Laval (CERSSPL-UL), Université Laval , Quebec , QC , Canada.
Mirjam Marjolein GarvelinkCentre de recherche sur les soins et les services de première ligne - Université Laval (CERSSPL-UL), Université Laval , Quebec , QC , Canada.
Matthew MenearCentre de recherche sur les soins et les services de première ligne - Université Laval (CERSSPL-UL), Université Laval , Quebec , QC , Canada.
Michèle DugasCentre de recherche sur les soins et les services de première ligne - Université Laval (CERSSPL-UL), Université Laval , Quebec , QC , Canada.
Rhéda AdekpedjouCentre de recherche sur les soins et les services de première ligne - Université Laval (CERSSPL-UL), Université Laval , Quebec , QC , Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2271-8059
France LégaréHealth and Social Services Systems, Knowledge Translation and Implementation component of the Quebec SPOR-SUPPORT Unit, Université Laval , Quebec , QC , Canada.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

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

Delivery of Health CareEvidence-Based MedicineCost-Benefit AnalysisHealthcare DisparitiesHumansIncomePovertycost-effectivenessequityethicsevidence-based interventionharmshealthScaling-up

Identifiers

PMID31575331
PMCPMC6781190

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.