ArticleBMC public health2025
From intervention studies to national programs, what are the favoring and hindering factors? a scoping review.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe translation of successful health projects into public health practice is among the most relevant challenges to pursue better health results, including the outcomes established by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Healthcare interventions proven cost-effective should be expanded into broader policies and practices. This process is called scaling-up and its success depends on several factors. To critically think about how to scale-up projects or adapt programs, it is necessary to identify potential favoring and hindering factors. In this sense, this study aims to document the type of public health programs which have been scaled up, describe the favoring and hindering factors of this process, and critically analyze the findings about it.
methodsTo reach this goal, this project used the scoping review method to map and summarize the existing evidence on scaling up health interventions through available publications. The databases used in this review were PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, VHL, Scielo, and Google Scholar.
resultsThrough the selection process from a total of 7,027 search hints, 30 relevant papers were included. The found factors that impacted the scaling-up process were organized based on categories of the ExpandNet/WHO framework. The results indicate that poor "user organization", "institutional environment" and "resource mobilization" were the most frequently mentioned hindering factors for scaling-up processes. Favoring factors included strong leadership, well defined roles, good coordination, positive political environment and community support and engagement.
conclusionHindering and favoring factors do not exist in isolation, but are correlated, interact, enhance or hinder one another. Beyond the practical advice given in this paper, further research recommended that investigates the association between different factors.
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.