Proximal outcomes of the ‘Making every contact count’ (MECC) approach in healthcare settings: a rapid review
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Non-communicable diseases represent one of the main health challenges of the 21st century; most of their risk factors are modifiable. The 'Making Every Contact Count' (MECC) strategy, first implemented in the United Kingdom, introduces an opportunistic approach to the delivery of prevention messages by any staff member in health and social services. The objective is to assess proximal outcomes of the MECC approach in healthcare settings. METHODS: This rapid review included documents from three databases (Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science) and grey literature sources (Google Scholar, WorldCat, other sources) searched between February and March 2025, with citation searching conducted in April 2026. A two-step, double-blind selection process was performed. The Population-Intervention-Control-Outcomes (PICO), Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I V2), and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) frameworks were used. RESULTS: Eight articles were included: two peer-reviewed articles, four abstracts, and two letters, all conducted within health services in England. These studies reported improvements in the uptake of health conversations, identification of health issues, referral to prevention programmes, and attendance at said programmes. Noticeably, only one article measured a health outcome, related to weight loss. The certainty of evidence for the outcomes was rated very low by the GRADE tool. The only ROBINS-I V2-compatible article was judged to have a moderate risk of bias. DISCUSSION: This limited body of literature and the low methodological quality among studies assessing patient outcomes underscore the need for more robust studies before recommending wider implementation of the MECC approach. PROSPERO registration number CRD420250650313.
Related
- Current Data to Inform Point-of-Care Testing for Sexually Transmitted Infections in United States Healthcare Settings: A Narrative Review
- In vitro contact force evaluation of robotic magnetic navigation catheters; Head to head comparison of different catheters and different settings
- Comprehensive Review: Governance of Antimicrobial Resistance in Nigerian Healthcare Settings
- Involvement of users and caregivers in mental healthcare decision-making within low-and middle-income countries: A scoping review
- Enhancing autism diagnostic capacity in Bolivia using an Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes model
BibTeX
@article{souza2026proximal,
title = {{Proximal outcomes of the ‘Making every contact count’ (MECC) approach in healthcare settings: a rapid review}},
author = {Sander de Souza and Léo Heran and Asma Fares and Philippe Michel},
journal = {Journal of Epidemiology and Population Health},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1016/j.jeph.2026.203799},
url = {https://hal.science/hal-05799815v1},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Proximal outcomes of the ‘Making every contact count’ (MECC) approach in healthcare settings: a rapid review
AU - Sander de Souza
AU - Léo Heran
AU - Asma Fares
AU - Philippe Michel
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/14
JO - Journal of Epidemiology and Population Health
DO - 10.1016/j.jeph.2026.203799
UR - https://hal.science/hal-05799815v1
AB - INTRODUCTION: Non-communicable diseases represent one of the main health challenges of the 21st century; most of their risk factors are modifiable. The 'Making Every Contact Count' (MECC) strategy, first implemented in the United Kingdom, introduces an opportunistic approach to the delivery of prevention messages by any staff member in health and social services. The objective is to assess proximal outcomes of the MECC approach in healthcare settings. METHODS: This rapid review included documents from three databases (Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science) and grey literature sources (Google Scholar, WorldCat, other sources) searched between February and March 2025, with citation searching conducted in April 2026. A two-step, double-blind selection process was performed. The Population-Intervention-Control-Outcomes (PICO), Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I V2), and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) frameworks were used. RESULTS: Eight articles were included: two peer-reviewed articles, four abstracts, and two letters, all conducted within health services in England. These studies reported improvements in the uptake of health conversations, identification of health issues, referral to prevention programmes, and attendance at said programmes. Noticeably, only one article measured a health outcome, related to weight loss. The certainty of evidence for the outcomes was rated very low by the GRADE tool. The only ROBINS-I V2-compatible article was judged to have a moderate risk of bias. DISCUSSION: This limited body of literature and the low methodological quality among studies assessing patient outcomes underscore the need for more robust studies before recommending wider implementation of the MECC approach. PROSPERO registration number CRD420250650313.
SN - 2950-4333
SN - 2950-4333
ER -