Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35218264›Full record

ArticleHealth & social care in the community2022

Making every contact count with seldom-heard groups? A qualitative evaluation of voluntary and community sector (VCS) implementation of a public health behaviour change programme in England.

Deborah Harrison, Rob Wilson, Andy Graham, Kristina Brown, Hannah Hesselgreaves, Malgorzata Ciesielska

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health & social care in the community, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Enhancing Engagement with Stop Smoking Services among Lower Socioeconomic Groups across the UK: A Qualitative Study using the Behaviour Change Wheel.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Deborah HarrisonNewcastle Business School, Northumbria University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5036-6698
Rob WilsonNewcastle Business School, Northumbria University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0469-1884
Andy GrahamPublic Health Consultant, Local Government, North East England, UK.
Kristina BrownNewcastle Business School, Northumbria University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK.
Hannah HesselgreavesNewcastle Business School, Northumbria University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK.
Malgorzata CiesielskaNewcastle Business School, Northumbria University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2349-9900
Northumbria University · GBLocal Government Association · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Making Every Contact Count (MECC) is a national, long-term public health strategy in England. It supports public-facing workers to use opportunities during routine contacts to enable healthy lifestyle changes. This paper reports the findings from an external evaluation of voluntary and community sector (VCS) delivery of MECC in the North East of England, which focused on engaging under-represented client groups. The study aimed to (a) Establish if (and how) MECC had impacted the workforce, including changes to staff knowledge, confidence and behaviour; (b) Identify benefits, challenges and unintended consequences; and (c) Explore outcomes for service users. A multi-stage qualitative design focused on understanding both process and outcomes. The study utilised three data collection methods, including a journey mapping workshop (n = 20), semi-structured interviews with delivery leads, VCS workers and volunteers who had accessed MECC training (n = 11), and focus group discussions with clients (n = 22). The findings illustrated positive early outcomes, including improvements in self-reported staff knowledge and confidence as well as emerging examples of organisational culture shift and individual behaviour change. Alongside this, the data provided a rich picture of barriers and challenges which are examined at different levels-national programme, local programme, VCS sector, partner organisation, worker and client. The research highlights clear successes of the VCS delivery model. However, it is presented as a 'double-edged sword,' in light of associated challenges such as sector-level funding uncertainty and accessibility of MECC resources to diverse client groups. The discussion considers issues related to the measurement and attribution of behaviour change outcomes for brief interventions, as well as fidelity, legacy and long-term sustainability challenges. The recommendations call for system-level analysis and comparison of different MECC implementation models, to improve our understanding of challenges, opportunities and programme reach for behaviour change intervention programmes-particularly in relation to seldom-heard client groups.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorHealthy LifestyleEnglandFocus GroupsHumansSelf Reportbehaviour changehealth policyhealth promotionhealth services researchpublic healthqualitative researchvoluntary and community sector

Identifiers

PMID35218264
PMCPMC9544506
OpenAlexW4214642656

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.