Mapping regional implementation of ‘Making Every Contact Count’: mixed-methods evaluation of implementation stage, strategies, barriers and facilitators of implementation
Background The Making Every Contact Count (MECC) programme provides training and materials to support public-facing workers to encourage health-promoting behaviour change by using the day-to-day interactions between organisations and individuals. This project aimed to analyse MECC implementation thr...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2024-07-01
|
| Series: | BMJ Open |
| Online Access: | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/14/7/e084208.full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850024297053028352 |
|---|---|
| author | Gregory Maniatopoulos Tracy Finch Deborah Harrison Catherine Haighton Jill Harland Rob Wilson Angela M Rodrigues Craig Robson Bethany Nichol Caroline Charlton Beckie Gibson Emma Giles Denise Orange |
| author_facet | Gregory Maniatopoulos Tracy Finch Deborah Harrison Catherine Haighton Jill Harland Rob Wilson Angela M Rodrigues Craig Robson Bethany Nichol Caroline Charlton Beckie Gibson Emma Giles Denise Orange |
| author_sort | Gregory Maniatopoulos |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background The Making Every Contact Count (MECC) programme provides training and materials to support public-facing workers to encourage health-promoting behaviour change by using the day-to-day interactions between organisations and individuals. This project aimed to analyse MECC implementation through a comparative analysis of implementation stage, strategies used for implementation and enablers/barriers of the implementation process within a region in England—the North East and North Cumbria (NENC).Methods A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted applying normalisation process theory and theoretical domains framework. MECC programme documents were reviewed and mapped against specific criteria (eg, implementation strategies). An online mapping survey was conducted to establish current implementation/delivery of MECC within NENC settings (eg, local government, healthcare and voluntary community sector). Qualitative research, using individual interviews and group discussions, was conducted to establish further understanding of MECC implementation.Results Our findings were informed by reviewing documents (n=5), surveying participants (n=34), interviews (n=18) and group discussions (n=48). Overall, the implementation of MECC within the region was at an early stage, with training mostly delivered between, rather than within, organisations. Qualitative findings highlighted factors that influence stakeholders to implement MECC (eg, organisational goals that were facilitated by MECC implementation, including the prevention agenda), supported resources that facilitate the implementation of MECC (eg, logic models) and enabling factors that promote MECC sustainability across the region (eg, buy-in from leadership and management).Conclusions The NENC MECC programme is built around regional leadership that supports the implementation process. This process evaluation identified key influences of MECC implementation across the region. We discuss evidence-based recommendation for policy and practice that can be taken forward to develop targeted strategies to support future MECC implementation. For example, a co-ordinated infrastructure and strategy is needed to combat delivery and implementation issues identified. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-8e0564f66a114f3eb51644bc5fa4d0ce |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 2044-6055 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-07-01 |
| publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMJ Open |
| spelling | doaj-art-8e0564f66a114f3eb51644bc5fa4d0ce2025-08-20T03:01:08ZengBMJ Publishing GroupBMJ Open2044-60552024-07-0114710.1136/bmjopen-2024-084208Mapping regional implementation of ‘Making Every Contact Count’: mixed-methods evaluation of implementation stage, strategies, barriers and facilitators of implementationGregory Maniatopoulos0Tracy Finch1Deborah Harrison2Catherine Haighton3Jill Harland4Rob Wilson5Angela M Rodrigues6Craig Robson7Bethany Nichol8Caroline Charlton9Beckie Gibson10Emma Giles11Denise Orange12Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UKNursing, Midwifery and Health, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UKNewcastle University Business School, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UKDepartment of Social Work, Education and Community Wellbeing, Northumbria University Newcastle, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UKNorth Tyneside General Hospital, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, North Shields, UKNewcastle Business School, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UKDepartment of Psychology, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UKNorth Tyneside General Hospital, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, North Shields, UKDepartment of Social Work, Education and Community Wellbeing, Northumbria University Newcastle, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UKDepartment of Psychology, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UKDepartment of Psychology, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UKSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UKOffice for Health Improvement & Disparities, Newcastle upon Tyne, UKBackground The Making Every Contact Count (MECC) programme provides training and materials to support public-facing workers to encourage health-promoting behaviour change by using the day-to-day interactions between organisations and individuals. This project aimed to analyse MECC implementation through a comparative analysis of implementation stage, strategies used for implementation and enablers/barriers of the implementation process within a region in England—the North East and North Cumbria (NENC).Methods A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted applying normalisation process theory and theoretical domains framework. MECC programme documents were reviewed and mapped against specific criteria (eg, implementation strategies). An online mapping survey was conducted to establish current implementation/delivery of MECC within NENC settings (eg, local government, healthcare and voluntary community sector). Qualitative research, using individual interviews and group discussions, was conducted to establish further understanding of MECC implementation.Results Our findings were informed by reviewing documents (n=5), surveying participants (n=34), interviews (n=18) and group discussions (n=48). Overall, the implementation of MECC within the region was at an early stage, with training mostly delivered between, rather than within, organisations. Qualitative findings highlighted factors that influence stakeholders to implement MECC (eg, organisational goals that were facilitated by MECC implementation, including the prevention agenda), supported resources that facilitate the implementation of MECC (eg, logic models) and enabling factors that promote MECC sustainability across the region (eg, buy-in from leadership and management).Conclusions The NENC MECC programme is built around regional leadership that supports the implementation process. This process evaluation identified key influences of MECC implementation across the region. We discuss evidence-based recommendation for policy and practice that can be taken forward to develop targeted strategies to support future MECC implementation. For example, a co-ordinated infrastructure and strategy is needed to combat delivery and implementation issues identified.https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/14/7/e084208.full |
| spellingShingle | Gregory Maniatopoulos Tracy Finch Deborah Harrison Catherine Haighton Jill Harland Rob Wilson Angela M Rodrigues Craig Robson Bethany Nichol Caroline Charlton Beckie Gibson Emma Giles Denise Orange Mapping regional implementation of ‘Making Every Contact Count’: mixed-methods evaluation of implementation stage, strategies, barriers and facilitators of implementation BMJ Open |
| title | Mapping regional implementation of ‘Making Every Contact Count’: mixed-methods evaluation of implementation stage, strategies, barriers and facilitators of implementation |
| title_full | Mapping regional implementation of ‘Making Every Contact Count’: mixed-methods evaluation of implementation stage, strategies, barriers and facilitators of implementation |
| title_fullStr | Mapping regional implementation of ‘Making Every Contact Count’: mixed-methods evaluation of implementation stage, strategies, barriers and facilitators of implementation |
| title_full_unstemmed | Mapping regional implementation of ‘Making Every Contact Count’: mixed-methods evaluation of implementation stage, strategies, barriers and facilitators of implementation |
| title_short | Mapping regional implementation of ‘Making Every Contact Count’: mixed-methods evaluation of implementation stage, strategies, barriers and facilitators of implementation |
| title_sort | mapping regional implementation of making every contact count mixed methods evaluation of implementation stage strategies barriers and facilitators of implementation |
| url | https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/14/7/e084208.full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT gregorymaniatopoulos mappingregionalimplementationofmakingeverycontactcountmixedmethodsevaluationofimplementationstagestrategiesbarriersandfacilitatorsofimplementation AT tracyfinch mappingregionalimplementationofmakingeverycontactcountmixedmethodsevaluationofimplementationstagestrategiesbarriersandfacilitatorsofimplementation AT deborahharrison mappingregionalimplementationofmakingeverycontactcountmixedmethodsevaluationofimplementationstagestrategiesbarriersandfacilitatorsofimplementation AT catherinehaighton mappingregionalimplementationofmakingeverycontactcountmixedmethodsevaluationofimplementationstagestrategiesbarriersandfacilitatorsofimplementation AT jillharland mappingregionalimplementationofmakingeverycontactcountmixedmethodsevaluationofimplementationstagestrategiesbarriersandfacilitatorsofimplementation AT robwilson mappingregionalimplementationofmakingeverycontactcountmixedmethodsevaluationofimplementationstagestrategiesbarriersandfacilitatorsofimplementation AT angelamrodrigues mappingregionalimplementationofmakingeverycontactcountmixedmethodsevaluationofimplementationstagestrategiesbarriersandfacilitatorsofimplementation AT craigrobson mappingregionalimplementationofmakingeverycontactcountmixedmethodsevaluationofimplementationstagestrategiesbarriersandfacilitatorsofimplementation AT bethanynichol mappingregionalimplementationofmakingeverycontactcountmixedmethodsevaluationofimplementationstagestrategiesbarriersandfacilitatorsofimplementation AT carolinecharlton mappingregionalimplementationofmakingeverycontactcountmixedmethodsevaluationofimplementationstagestrategiesbarriersandfacilitatorsofimplementation AT beckiegibson mappingregionalimplementationofmakingeverycontactcountmixedmethodsevaluationofimplementationstagestrategiesbarriersandfacilitatorsofimplementation AT emmagiles mappingregionalimplementationofmakingeverycontactcountmixedmethodsevaluationofimplementationstagestrategiesbarriersandfacilitatorsofimplementation AT deniseorange mappingregionalimplementationofmakingeverycontactcountmixedmethodsevaluationofimplementationstagestrategiesbarriersandfacilitatorsofimplementation |