Trial reportBMC health services research2026
Sustainability of implementation of health-promotion practice in primary healthcare: a non-randomized parallel group study.
Trial report in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04799860 (Act in Time- Implementation of Health Promotive Work-way in Primary Care Setting - Evaluation of Effect- and Implementation Process), which is not on this 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.
Act in Time- Implementation of Health Promotive Work-way in Primary Care Setting - Evaluation of Effect- and Implementation Process (AcTi)
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the importance of promoting healthy lifestyles in primary healthcare (PHC) to prevent non-communicable diseases, implementing and sustaining evidence-based health-promotion lifestyle practices remains challenging. This study aimed to evaluate the sustainability of uptake of a health-promoting practice using a 12-month multifaceted implementation intervention in a Swedish PHC setting.
methodsA non-randomized parallel group design was used to compare five PHC intervention centers and five matched control centers with respect to health-promotion activities registered in medical records at: 6 months pre-implementation, during a 12-month implementation phase, and a follow-up at 18 months (sustainability). The intervention centers received a multifaceted implementation intervention based on a leadership change model using internal and external facilitators. Uptake was analysed using negative binomial mixed-effects models with a log link, modelling monthly uptake rates with an offset for the number of visits. Time since intervention initiation and time since the post-implementation phase were modelled using restricted cubic splines, allowing intervention effects to vary over time. Models were adjusted for seasonality, secular trends, patient sex, and site pair, with site included as a random effect. Intervention effects were estimated as ratios of rate ratios with simultaneous 95% confidence intervals.
resultsThe intervention centers successfully adopted and sustained the clinical intervention. At the 18-month follow-up, intervention centers sent out 7.2 times as many lifestyle screening forms compared with the control centers. The mean crude uptake difference was 43.6 and the relative rate was estimated at 2.23, indicating that patients at the intervention centers were more often asked about their lifestyle and more often received advice or consultative conversations about lifestyle changes.
conclusionsThis multifaceted implementation intervention, focusing on leading change and facilitation in a routine clinical setting, increased the uptake of a health-promoting practice at the PHC intervention centers that was sustained over time. Health-promoting activities reached a larger proportion of patients in the intervention centers, indicating that the clinical intervention may work under routine conditions. These results are promising but need to be verified in larger randomized studies. In addition, differences between the intervention centers emphasize the need to explore the mechanisms of impact.
trial registrationThis study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on 4 March 2021 (ref: NCT04799860).
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.