ArticleJournal of public health (Oxford, England)2023
Experiences of implementing the 'Making Every Contact Count' initiative into a UK integrated care system: an interview study.
Article in Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Making every contact count for adult patients in healthcare settings: a scoping review of implementation contexts, methods, and levels of evidence.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Exploring the 'train the trainer' model for delivering Making Every Contact Count (MECC) training at scale: A qualitative study.British journal of health psychology · 2026Article
- A mixed methods study exploring barriers and facilitators to secondary-care nurses discussing smoking cessation with patients: phase 1 of the Think Quit Study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Primary prevention in hospitals in 20 high-income countries in Europe - A case of not "Making Every Contact Count"?Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe 'Making Every Contact Count' (MECC) approach is in line with the current National Health Service (NHS) strategy to improve and prevent health conditions in England. Despite its importance and value for preventative healthcare, implementation of MECC varies. The aim of this study was to explore the barriers and facilitators of implementing MECC and MECC training into an integrated care system (ICS).
methodsRemote semi-structured interviews were conducted with staff across an ICS in the North West of England who were involved in implementing and delivering MECC across the region. Data were analysed initially using an inductive thematic analysis approach and then interpreted using the 'Capability, Opportunity, Motivation = Behaviour' (COM-B) model of behaviour change.
resultsWe interviewed nine stakeholders and identified three superordinate themes: (1) macro-level barriers and facilitators, e.g. funding; (2) organizational level barriers and facilitators, e.g. time and resource; and (3) individual-level barriers/facilitators for both MECC trainers and MECC agents.
conclusionsMECC has potential to meet the needs of the public's health, but barriers to its implementation exist. MECC must be successfully embedded into organizations and regions in which it is implemented, which relies on further development of an appropriate infrastructure including sustainable funding and a shift in culture to value preventative healthcare.
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.