ArticleBMC health services research2026
Making every contact count for adult patients in healthcare settings: a scoping review of implementation contexts, methods, and levels of evidence.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn the context of the global shift towards primary prevention and behavioural change interventions for non-communicable diseases, this scoping review aimed to map the existing scientific literature on the Making Every Contact Count (MECC) programme implemented in healthcare settings for adult patients and identify remaining knowledge gaps.
methodsPubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for indexed articles published between 2010 and January 2026 using combinations of the terms "Making Every Contact Count", NOT "third and social economy sector", and NOT "voluntary and community sector". Studies were included if they investigated MECC implementation in healthcare settings for adult patients. Two reviewers independently extracted and appraised the data. A visual evidence mapping synthesis was then developed.
resultsOf the 304 references identified, 22 articles published between 2013 and 2025 were included. Studies were conducted in the United Kingdom and Ireland across diverse healthcare delivery sectors. Investigated dimensions included MECC training, implementation, and delivery from the perspectives of healthcare professionals, patients, and students, as well as document analyses. Outcomes mainly related to attitudes, perceptions, and implementation determinants. The methodological and reporting quality of the included studies was heterogeneous. Identified gaps concerned working conditions, the applicability of MECC across different implementation contexts, the intensity, duration, and content of MECC delivery, and its cost-effectiveness, particularly regarding specific behavioural risk factors.
conclusionsInterest in MECC is increasing. This scoping review synthesised the existing literature, mapped key evidence gaps, and highlighted the limited evidence currently available regarding the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of MECC, particularly across different clinical and national implementation contexts. The findings also suggest that evidence supporting Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment approaches cannot be directly extrapolated to MECC. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO under the number CRD420251044644.
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.