Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40765029›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2025

Why engagement matters in policy implementation: an examination of the engagement of policy actors in the implementation of a mental health and addictions strategy.

Heather L Bullock, John N Lavis, Gillian Mulvale, Michael G Wilson, Celine Mulhern

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Heather L BullockDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada. bullochl@mcmaster.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3657-6525
John N LavisDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada.
Gillian MulvaleDeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada.
Michael G WilsonDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada.
Celine MulhernMinistry of Health, Government of Ontario, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundShifts toward "new public governance" (NPG), where policy decisions and their implementation are "co-produced" by a policy network, have captured the attention of policymakers as an approach that may produce better outcomes. It is particularly promising in mental health, where it is increasingly acknowledged that effective change requires actions by multiple actors across a range of policy and system settings. In Ontario, Canada, the government's recent mental health reform, Open Minds, Healthy Minds, Ontario's Comprehensive Mental Health and Addictions Strategy, is unique in terms of its scope and the NPG-inspired processes employed. This study addresses two questions: 1) Who was engaged in the implementation of the Strategy and how were they engaged? and 2) How and why did their involvement contribute to the implementation process and early outcomes?

methodsWe used a single case study design and partnered with the Ontario Ministry of Health. We used two complementary analytical methods: 1) stakeholder analysis, and 2) political landscape analysis. Seventeen interviews were conducted with citizens, government officials and people with lived experience, and 21 documents analyzed using directed content analysis and drawing from theoretical frameworks regarding political and actor-related determinants of implementation.

resultsStakeholder analysis highlighted the wide range of interdependent actors involved, the multiple ways they provided input, and the structures utilized. The political landscape analysis revealed the role of interests as having a large influence on the implementation process and early outcomes, particularly political actors' decision to tie the process to their election platform. Relational and contextual variables, such as the relative instability of the policy actors, had a negative impact on the process, but that was offset by the perceived level of dedication of the individuals involved.

conclusionOur findings point to five practical insights for policymakers and implementers: being attentive to the power distribution among actors, the importance of building and maintaining trust amongst actors, the opportunity-cost of taking a NPG approach, the timing/sequencing of the process, and the need for careful consider of the type of actors involved and the expertise they bring.

Indexed as

Community engagementCoproductionMental healthPolicy actorsPolicy analysisPolicy implementationQualitative case study

Identifiers

PMID40765029
PMCPMC12323068

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.