Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32368619›Full record

ReviewGlobal health research and policy2020

Developing a framework to inform scale-up success for population health interventions: a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature.

Duyen Thi Kim Nguyen, Lindsay McLaren, Nelly D Oelke, Lynn McIntyre

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Global health research and policy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Development of a Framework for Scaling Up Community-Based Health Promotion: A Best Fit Framework Synthesis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Readiness for scale-up: lessons learned from the Public Health Agency of Canada's Innovation Strategy.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Duyen Thi Kim Nguyen1Department of Economics, Faculty of Business, University of New Brunswick, 100 Tucker Park Road, P.O. Box 5050, Saint John, New Brunswick E2L 4L5 Canada.
Lindsay McLaren4Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, TRW3, 3280 Hospital Dr. NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4Z6 Canada.
Nelly D Oelke4Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, TRW3, 3280 Hospital Dr. NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4Z6 Canada.
Lynn McIntyre4Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, TRW3, 3280 Hospital Dr. NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4Z6 Canada.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Population health interventions (PHIs) have the potential to improve the health of large populations by systematically addressing underlying conditions of poor health outcomes (i.e., social determinants of health) and reducing health inequities. Scaling-up may be one means of enhancing the impact of effective PHIs. However, not all scale-up attempts have been successful. In an attempt to help guide the process of successful scale-up of a PHI, we look to the organizational readiness for change theory for a new perspective on how we may better understand the scale-up pathway. Using the change theory, our goal was to develop the foundations of an evidence-based, theory-informed framework for a PHI, through a critical examination of various PHI scale-up experiences documented in the literature. Methods: We conducted a multi-step, critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) to gather and examine insights from scale-up experiences detailed in peer-reviewed and grey literatures, with a focus on PHIs from a variety of global settings. The CIS included iterative cycles of systematic searching, sampling, data extraction, critiquing, interpreting, coding, reflecting, and synthesizing. Theories relevant to innovations, complexity, and organizational readiness guided our analysis and synthesis. Results: We retained and examined twenty different PHI scale-up experiences, which were extracted from 77 documents (47 peer-reviewed, 30 grey literature) published between 1995 and 2013. Overall, we identified three phases (i.e., Groundwork, Implementing Scale-up, and Sustaining Scale-up), 11 actions, and four key components (i.e., PHI, context, capacity, stakeholders) pertinent to the scale-up process. Our guiding theories provided explanatory power to various aspects of the scale-up process and to scale-up success, and an alternative perspective to the assessment of scale-up readiness for a PHI. Conclusion: Our synthesis provided the foundations of the Scale-up Readiness Assessment Framework. Our theoretically-informed and rigorous synthesis methodology permitted identification of disparate processes involved in the successful scale-up of a PHI. Our findings complement the guidance and resources currently available, and offer an added perspective to assessing scale-up readiness for a PHI.

Indexed as

HumansPopulation HealthPublic HealthCritical interpretive synthesisFrameworkPopulation health interventionReadinessScale-up

Identifiers

PMID32368619
PMCPMC7189598

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.