Mapping regional implementation of ‘Making Every Contact Count’: mixed-methods evaluation of implementation stage, strategies, barriers and facilitators of implementation

Rodrigues, AM ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5064-8006, Nichol, B ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7642-1448, Wilson, R ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0469-1884, Charlton, C ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1151-8214, Gibson, B ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4723-2576, Finch, T ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8647-735X, Haighton, C ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8061-0428, Maniatopoulos, G, Giles, E ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2166-3300, Harrison, D ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5036-6698, Orange, D, Robson, C and Harland, J (2024) Mapping regional implementation of ‘Making Every Contact Count’: mixed-methods evaluation of implementation stage, strategies, barriers and facilitators of implementation. BMJ Open, 14 (7). e084208. ISSN 2044-6055

Preview

Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (2MB) | Preview

Abstract

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 coordinated infrastructure and strategy is needed to combat delivery and implementation issues identified.