Back

Assessing healthcare professionals' experiences of delivering opportunistic, weight-related conversations in a mental health setting: a mixed methods study

Rodrigues, A. M.; Kemp, E.; Faulkner, S.; McBride, K.; Aquino, M. R. J.; Wilson, R.; Vasiljevic, M.; Robson, C.; Harland, J.; Loraine, M.; Haighton, C.

2025-12-17 public and global health
10.64898/2025.12.16.25342378
Show abstract

BackgroundMaking Every Contact Count (MECC) is a person-centred approach to health behaviour change, utilising behavioural science to promote healthy lifestyle choices. Weight-related conversations in mental health settings are particularly important, with users noting gaps in information on medication-related weight gain and support needs. MECC training can address these gaps by improving staff confidence and service delivery, enhancing weight management for individuals with serious mental illness. This study explores staff experiences of weight-related MECC conversations in a mental health setting. MethodsThis mixed-methods study involved healthcare staff from a National Health Service (NHS) mental health inpatient setting in Northeast England. A quantitative online survey administered pre- MECC training, post-MECC training, and 8-10 weeks later captured staff perspectives. Qualitative interviews were conducted with trained and non-trained staff to explore MECC implementation. Quantitative data were analysed using independent and paired-samples t-tests, while qualitative data underwent thematic analysis, using the COM-B framework that examines Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation as key drivers of behaviour. ResultsThirty-six staff completed the pre-training survey, 20 completed the post-training survey, and 25 participated in interviews (15 trained, 10 non-trained staff). Quantitative analysis showed that training improved staff perceptions of confidence and motivation to deliver MECC, though most changes were not statistically significant. Perceptions around opportunity (time, resources, social support) declined at follow-up. Perceived importance and usefulness of MECC also declined over time (p < .05). Qualitative analysis identified barriers and facilitators, mapped to the COM-B model. Trained staff highlighted organisational resources, training structure, and wider determinants of health in supporting MECC delivery, alongside skills in rapport-building. Non-trained staff noted gaps in MECC awareness, recording systems, and training but recognised MECC importance and impact. Both groups identified time constraints, confidence, and the integration of MECC within their professional roles as key factors influencing delivery of weight-related conversations. ConclusionMECC training positively impacted healthcare professionals perceptions and confidence in delivering weight-related MECC conversations in mental health settings. While only confidence changes were evident in surveys, qualitative findings showed multifaceted influences on MECC implementation, emphasising the need for sustained support and system-level changes to overcome structural barriers and ensure long-term MECC delivery.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ Open
based on 553 papers
Top 6%
15.9%
2
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 56%
7.8%
3
BMC Public Health
based on 148 papers
Top 2%
6.6%
4
Frontiers in Public Health
based on 135 papers
Top 6%
4.6%
5
British Journal of General Practice
based on 22 papers
Top 0.5%
4.0%
6
BMC Medicine
based on 155 papers
Top 6%
2.9%
7
Health Expectations
based on 12 papers
Top 0.2%
2.9%
8
BMC Health Services Research
based on 43 papers
Top 2%
2.5%
9
BMC Psychiatry
based on 20 papers
Top 0.7%
2.4%
10
PLOS Medicine
based on 95 papers
Top 6%
2.3%
50% of probability mass above
11
Psychological Medicine
based on 52 papers
Top 4%
1.9%
12
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
based on 11 papers
Top 1.0%
1.6%
13
BJPsych Open
based on 24 papers
Top 1%
1.6%
14
Journal of General Internal Medicine
based on 19 papers
Top 2%
1.6%
15
PLOS Global Public Health
based on 287 papers
Top 15%
1.6%
16
Addiction
based on 24 papers
Top 1%
1.4%
17
JMIR Formative Research
based on 31 papers
Top 4%
1.4%
18
eClinicalMedicine
based on 55 papers
Top 2%
1.4%
19
Journal of Medical Internet Research
based on 81 papers
Top 11%
1.4%
20
Preventive Medicine Reports
based on 14 papers
Top 1%
1.2%
21
BMC Geriatrics
based on 15 papers
Top 1%
1.2%
22
The Lancet Public Health
based on 20 papers
Top 1%
0.9%
23
BMJ Open Quality
based on 15 papers
Top 2%
0.8%
24
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
based on 32 papers
Top 4%
0.8%
25
Public Health
based on 34 papers
Top 8%
0.7%
26
The Lancet Regional Health - Europe
based on 32 papers
Top 2%
0.7%
27
Frontiers in Psychology
based on 18 papers
Top 2%
0.7%
28
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences
based on 10 papers
Top 2%
0.7%
29
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
based on 45 papers
Top 13%
0.7%
30
Journal of Public Health
based on 23 papers
Top 4%
0.7%