ArticleBMC health services research2024
Advancing scaling science in health and social care: a scoping review and appraisal of scaling frameworks.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Frameworks for developing and evaluating public health interventions in primary prevention and health promotion: a scoping review.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Equitable Patient and Public Involvement Strategies for Scaling Health and Social Care Interventions: A Consensus Study Inspired by Delphi Methods.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- A scoping review and systems thinking synthesis of scale-up frameworks.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Development, structure, and implementation of cardiometabolic clinics in the United States, with a focus on comprehensive patient care.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2026Review
- How is health equity considered in scale-up guidance? A scoping review of process models for scaling public health innovations.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Structural models for spreading and scaling digital health initiatives: A scoping review protocol.PloS one · 2026Article
- Article
- Development and Implementation of a Novel Approach to Scaling the Meeting Centre Intervention for People Living with Dementia and Their Unpaid Carers, Using an Adapted Version of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) Checklist.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScaling is typically discussed as a way to amplify or expand a health innovation. However, there is limited knowledge about the specific techniques that can enhance access to or improve the quality of innovations, aiming to increase their positive impacts for the public good. We sought to identify, compare, and contrast scaling frameworks to advance the science and practice of scaling.
methodsUsing a scoping review we asked: 1) What are the attributes of scaling frameworks for innovations that support health outcomes? and 2) What are the similarities and differences of these attributes? Inclusion criteria were 1) primary studies or review articles, 2) a primary focus on scaling innovations for health and social care, 3) articles that developed a framework, and 4) articles were concerned with a health outcome. Starting from an umbrella review, we identified relevant studies and extracted data about the characteristics of the articles, attributes of framework development, attributes of framework components, transferability, and the framework's underlying ethical lens. Grey literature was included through expert consultation. Data were summarized using frequencies and qualitative description.
resultsFrom 94 potentially eligible articles, we identified 9 unique frameworks and included 4 additional frameworks from the grey literature, resulting in a total of 13 frameworks. Seven frameworks include a definition of scaling, and eight are designed for public health settings. Five of the frameworks were developed for the US/Canada/UK and Australia. Six of the lead authors' primary institutional affiliation are from North America. Framework developers involved diverse stakeholders in a number of ways to develop their framework. Eight frameworks were developed, but not yet tested or applied, while the remaining frameworks were in the process of being applied or had already been applied to cases. All frameworks use a consequentialist-utilitarian ethical lens. Lastly, a comparison between frameworks found in the grey or published literature show important differences.
conclusionMuch may be learned through further support for, and development of, scaling frameworks by primary authors affiliated with the Global South. Important aspects of framework development were identified, especially understanding the nuances of diverse stakeholder involvement in development.
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.