Scholarlink

Introduction <p>In the context of the global shift towards primary prevention and behavioural change interventions for non-communicable diseases, this scoping review aimed to map the existing scientific literature on the Making Every Contact Count (MECC) programme implemented in healthcare settings for adult patients and identify remaining knowledge gaps.</p> Methods <p>PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for indexed articles published between 2010 and January 2026 using combinations of the terms “Making Every Contact Count”, NOT “third and social economy sector”, and NOT “voluntary and community sector”. Studies were included if they investigated MECC implementation in healthcare settings for adult patients. Two reviewers independently extracted and appraised the data. A visual evidence mapping synthesis was then developed.</p> Results <p>Of the 304 references identified, 22 articles published between 2013 and 2025 were included. Studies were conducted in the United Kingdom and Ireland across diverse healthcare delivery sectors. Investigated dimensions included MECC training, implementation, and delivery from the perspectives of healthcare professionals, patients, and students, as well as document analyses. Outcomes mainly related to attitudes, perceptions, and implementation determinants. The methodological and reporting quality of the included studies was heterogeneous. Identified gaps concerned working conditions, the applicability of MECC across different implementation contexts, the intensity, duration, and content of MECC delivery, and its cost-effectiveness, particularly regarding specific behavioural risk factors.</p> Conclusions <p>Interest in MECC is increasing. This scoping review synthesised the existing literature, mapped key evidence gaps, and highlighted the limited evidence currently available regarding the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of MECC, particularly across different clinical and national implementation contexts. The findings also suggest that evidence supporting Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment approaches cannot be directly extrapolated to MECC. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO under the number CRD420251044644.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Making every contact count for adult patients in healthcare settings: a scoping review of implementation contexts, methods, and levels of evidence

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月17日

查看全文
  • Diane Geindreau,
  • Lou Martineau,
  • Aymery Constant,
  • Alexis Descatha,
  • Celine Schnebelen

摘要

Introduction

In the context of the global shift towards primary prevention and behavioural change interventions for non-communicable diseases, this scoping review aimed to map the existing scientific literature on the Making Every Contact Count (MECC) programme implemented in healthcare settings for adult patients and identify remaining knowledge gaps.

Methods

PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for indexed articles published between 2010 and January 2026 using combinations of the terms “Making Every Contact Count”, NOT “third and social economy sector”, and NOT “voluntary and community sector”. Studies were included if they investigated MECC implementation in healthcare settings for adult patients. Two reviewers independently extracted and appraised the data. A visual evidence mapping synthesis was then developed.

Results

Of the 304 references identified, 22 articles published between 2013 and 2025 were included. Studies were conducted in the United Kingdom and Ireland across diverse healthcare delivery sectors. Investigated dimensions included MECC training, implementation, and delivery from the perspectives of healthcare professionals, patients, and students, as well as document analyses. Outcomes mainly related to attitudes, perceptions, and implementation determinants. The methodological and reporting quality of the included studies was heterogeneous. Identified gaps concerned working conditions, the applicability of MECC across different implementation contexts, the intensity, duration, and content of MECC delivery, and its cost-effectiveness, particularly regarding specific behavioural risk factors.

Conclusions

Interest in MECC is increasing. This scoping review synthesised the existing literature, mapped key evidence gaps, and highlighted the limited evidence currently available regarding the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of MECC, particularly across different clinical and national implementation contexts. The findings also suggest that evidence supporting Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment approaches cannot be directly extrapolated to MECC. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO under the number CRD420251044644.