Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42675488›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2026

A scoping review and systems thinking synthesis of scale-up frameworks.

Cole Hooley, Katherine E Marçal, Kayden Barlow, Mia T Vogel

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Cole HooleySchool of Social Work, Brigham Young University, 2166 JFSB, Social Work, Provo, UT, 84602, USA. cole_hooley@byu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5361-5098
Katherine E MarçalSchool of Social Work, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Kayden BarlowSchool of Social Work, Brigham Young University, 2166 JFSB, Social Work, Provo, UT, 84602, USA.
Mia T VogelAndrew M. and Jane M. Bursky School of Public Health, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.

Funding

WUSTL Transdisciplinary Pre- and Postdoctoral Training Program in Obesity and Cardiovascular DiseaseT32HL130357 · NHLBI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI WILFLEY, DENISE ELLA · 2016 to 2025
$4.3M
NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL130357
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a pressing need to scale-up health and human services. While there are many scale-up frameworks in the broader literature, most of the general scale-up frameworks treat scale-up as a linear process. There are calls to bolster research viewing scale-up as a dynamic process. The purpose of this review is to consolidate and apply systems thinking to existing scale-up frameworks to illustrate feedback relationships among the drivers of scale-up.

methodsWe used a scoping review informed by hermeneutic principles to search the literature for scale-up determinants. We searched six scholarly databases (Medline, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Google Scholar) for review articles of scale-up frameworks that yielded key determinants of scale-up. We also included other scale-up papers that yielded determinants. Articles that did not meet these criteria were excluded during the title/abstract and full-text screening process. Two coders assessed each article before it was excluded. Two coders extracted the scale-up determinants and definitions. We used thematic analysis to code and consolidate the determinants. Then we used an ex-post development approach to create a causal loop diagram (CLD) visualizing the scale-up determinants and feedback structures.

resultsOur search yielded 2693 articles which resulted in a usable sample of 40 articles after the screening process. The 40 articles contained 1053 scale-up determinants. Our coding procedures and CLD reduced these determinants to 25 in our model. There are six reinforcing loops and three balancing loops that are at play in scale-up efforts depicted in the final CLD. Among the determinants, motivation, capacity, enabling environment, and alignment were prominent.

conclusionsThe resulting interpretation and CLD provide a dynamic conceptualization of scale-up complexity, highlighting key leverage points in the scale-up process.

Indexed as

Systems AnalysisHumansCausal loop diagramComplexityImplementation scienceScale-upScoping reviewSystem dynamicsSystems thinking

Identifiers

PMID42675488
PMCPMC13531751

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.