Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Public health practitioners' views of the 'Maki...

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Public health practitioners' views of the 'Making Every Contact Count' initiative and standards for its evaluation

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Public health practitioners' views of the 'Making Every Contact Count' initiative and standards for its evaluation. / Chisholm, A.; Ang-Chen, P.; Peters, S. et al.
In: Journal of Public Health, Vol. 41, No. 1, 01.03.2019, p. e70-e77.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Chisholm A, Ang-Chen P, Peters S, Hart J, Beenstock J. Public health practitioners' views of the 'Making Every Contact Count' initiative and standards for its evaluation. Journal of Public Health. 2019 Mar 1;41(1):e70-e77. Epub 2018 May 30. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdy094

Author

Chisholm, A. ; Ang-Chen, P. ; Peters, S. et al. / Public health practitioners' views of the 'Making Every Contact Count' initiative and standards for its evaluation. In: Journal of Public Health. 2019 ; Vol. 41, No. 1. pp. e70-e77.

Bibtex

@article{61d0b67726394a9eb86a82c4fe088f3f,
title = "Public health practitioners' views of the 'Making Every Contact Count' initiative and standards for its evaluation",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: National Health Service England encourages staff to use everyday interactions with patients to discuss healthy lifestyle changes as part of the 'Making Every Contact Count' (MECC) approach. Although healthcare, government and public health organisations are now expected to adopt this approach, evidence is lacking about how MECC is currently implemented in practice. This study explored the views and experiences of those involved in designing, delivering and evaluating MECC. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 13 public health practitioners with a range of roles in implementing MECC across England. Interviews were conducted via telephone, transcribed verbatim and analysed using an inductive thematic approach. RESULTS: Four key themes emerged identifying factors accounting for variations in MECC implementation: (i) 'design, quality and breadth of training', (ii) 'outcomes attended to and measured', (iii) 'engagement levels of trainees and trainers' and (iv) 'system-level influences'. CONCLUSIONS: MECC is considered a valuable public health approach but because organisations interpret MECC differently, staff training varies in nature. Practitioners believe that implementation can be improved, and an evidence-base underpinning MECC developed, by sharing experiences more widely, introducing standardization to staff training and finding better methods for assessing meaningful outcomes. ",
keywords = "education, employment and skills, health promotion, public health",
author = "A. Chisholm and P. Ang-Chen and S. Peters and J. Hart and J. Beenstock",
year = "2019",
month = mar,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/pubmed/fdy094",
language = "English",
volume = "41",
pages = "e70--e77",
journal = "Journal of Public Health",
issn = "1741-3842",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Public health practitioners' views of the 'Making Every Contact Count' initiative and standards for its evaluation

AU - Chisholm, A.

AU - Ang-Chen, P.

AU - Peters, S.

AU - Hart, J.

AU - Beenstock, J.

PY - 2019/3/1

Y1 - 2019/3/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: National Health Service England encourages staff to use everyday interactions with patients to discuss healthy lifestyle changes as part of the 'Making Every Contact Count' (MECC) approach. Although healthcare, government and public health organisations are now expected to adopt this approach, evidence is lacking about how MECC is currently implemented in practice. This study explored the views and experiences of those involved in designing, delivering and evaluating MECC. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 13 public health practitioners with a range of roles in implementing MECC across England. Interviews were conducted via telephone, transcribed verbatim and analysed using an inductive thematic approach. RESULTS: Four key themes emerged identifying factors accounting for variations in MECC implementation: (i) 'design, quality and breadth of training', (ii) 'outcomes attended to and measured', (iii) 'engagement levels of trainees and trainers' and (iv) 'system-level influences'. CONCLUSIONS: MECC is considered a valuable public health approach but because organisations interpret MECC differently, staff training varies in nature. Practitioners believe that implementation can be improved, and an evidence-base underpinning MECC developed, by sharing experiences more widely, introducing standardization to staff training and finding better methods for assessing meaningful outcomes.

AB - BACKGROUND: National Health Service England encourages staff to use everyday interactions with patients to discuss healthy lifestyle changes as part of the 'Making Every Contact Count' (MECC) approach. Although healthcare, government and public health organisations are now expected to adopt this approach, evidence is lacking about how MECC is currently implemented in practice. This study explored the views and experiences of those involved in designing, delivering and evaluating MECC. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 13 public health practitioners with a range of roles in implementing MECC across England. Interviews were conducted via telephone, transcribed verbatim and analysed using an inductive thematic approach. RESULTS: Four key themes emerged identifying factors accounting for variations in MECC implementation: (i) 'design, quality and breadth of training', (ii) 'outcomes attended to and measured', (iii) 'engagement levels of trainees and trainers' and (iv) 'system-level influences'. CONCLUSIONS: MECC is considered a valuable public health approach but because organisations interpret MECC differently, staff training varies in nature. Practitioners believe that implementation can be improved, and an evidence-base underpinning MECC developed, by sharing experiences more widely, introducing standardization to staff training and finding better methods for assessing meaningful outcomes.

KW - education

KW - employment and skills

KW - health promotion

KW - public health

U2 - 10.1093/pubmed/fdy094

DO - 10.1093/pubmed/fdy094

M3 - Journal article

VL - 41

SP - e70-e77

JO - Journal of Public Health

JF - Journal of Public Health

SN - 1741-3842

IS - 1

ER -