ArticlePloS one2026
What works, for whom, and under what circumstances for recipients of training in opportunistic behaviour change conversations: A mixed methods realist evaluation protocol.
Article in PloS one, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMaking Every Contact Count' (MECC) is a person-centred initiative that enables service providers across settings to support behaviour change through conversations about health and wellbeing. MECC has been widely implemented across the UK and internationally, although training approaches vary considerably and do not consistently translate into MECC delivery. Evidence suggests that Healthy Conversation Skills (HCS) training, which supports service users to identify their own solutions, may be an acceptable and effective means of delivering MECC across settings. This realist evaluation aims to understand which elements of HCS training work, for whom, under what circumstances, in what respects, to what extent, and why, to inform the adaptation of HCS across settings to ensure that all recipients are equipped to deliver MECC.
methodsThis mixed-methods realist evaluation will comprise pre- and post-training surveys (at baseline, immediately post-training, and approximately eight weeks post-training) and realist interviews. Two participant groups were selected for comparison: service providers working or volunteering in the voluntary, community, and social enterprise (VCSE) sector, and undergraduate pharmacy students. Initial programme theories were developed through abductive reasoning, literature scoping, and stakeholder engagement. Survey data will assess outcomes of HCS training, while realist interviews will explore how these outcomes are generated by underlying mechanisms within specific contexts. DISCUSSION: A refined programme theory will be produced, explaining how and why HCS training leads to MECC delivery across different settings. Findings will inform how HCS training can be adapted for distinct audiences, identify the core components of MECC training that must be preserved, and guide future evaluations by examining whether HCS training translates into sustained MECC delivery. The findings of this study will inform resource allocation for preventative health interventions outside of healthcare settings and thus have the potential to shape public health policy, empower non-specialist providers, and strengthen strategies for disease prevention.
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.