ArticleBMJ open2024
Mapping regional implementation of 'Making Every Contact Count': mixed-methods evaluation of implementation stage, strategies, barriers and facilitators of implementation.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Five years of the Implementation Research Logic Model: a citation analysis and systematic scoping review of its use in implementation research and practice.Implementation science : IS · 2026Article
- Anticipated barriers and facilitators of implementing a digital behavioral treatment for chronic pain: a qualitative interview study.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
- Mixed Methods Evaluation of the "Train the Trainer" Model for Delivering Core "Making Every Contact Count" (MECC) Training.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2026Article
- Implementing shared care models for young people with mental health difficulties: a consolidated framework for implementation research- informed scoping review of service integration across physical, sexual and mental health domains.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Article
- A qualitative exploration of service users' experiences of weight management conversations in a mental health setting.PEC innovation · 2025Article
- Moving primary prevention into a tertiary care hospital?Environmental health and preventive medicine · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Making Every Contact Count (MECC) programme provides training and materials to support public-facing workers to encourage health-promoting behaviour change by using the day-to-day interactions between organisations and individuals. This project aimed to analyse MECC implementation through a comparative analysis of implementation stage, strategies used for implementation and enablers/barriers of the implementation process within a region in England-the North East and North Cumbria (NENC).
methodsA mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted applying normalisation process theory and theoretical domains framework. MECC programme documents were reviewed and mapped against specific criteria (eg, implementation strategies). An online mapping survey was conducted to establish current implementation/delivery of MECC within NENC settings (eg, local government, healthcare and voluntary community sector). Qualitative research, using individual interviews and group discussions, was conducted to establish further understanding of MECC implementation.
resultsOur findings were informed by reviewing documents (n=5), surveying participants (n=34), interviews (n=18) and group discussions (n=48). Overall, the implementation of MECC within the region was at an early stage, with training mostly delivered between, rather than within, organisations. Qualitative findings highlighted factors that influence stakeholders to implement MECC (eg, organisational goals that were facilitated by MECC implementation, including the prevention agenda), supported resources that facilitate the implementation of MECC (eg, logic models) and enabling factors that promote MECC sustainability across the region (eg, buy-in from leadership and management).
conclusionsThe NENC MECC programme is built around regional leadership that supports the implementation process. This process evaluation identified key influences of MECC implementation across the region. We discuss evidence-based recommendation for policy and practice that can be taken forward to develop targeted strategies to support future MECC implementation. For example, a co-ordinated infrastructure and strategy is needed to combat delivery and implementation issues identified.
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.