ArticleBMC primary care2026
Act in time: primary health care professionals', internal facilitators', and managers' experiences of working health-promotively after a 12-month implementation intervention: a qualitative study using normalization process theory.
Article in BMC primary care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealthy-lifestyle-promoting practices are recommended to reduce the prevalence of non-communicable diseases and increase health, but are underutilized in Swedish primary health care (PHC). As part of the Act in Time project, a 12-month multifaceted implementation intervention to support the uptake of a clinical intervention offering lifestyle-screening forms and counselling to patients with planned visits, was evaluated in a PHC setting. This study aimed to explore the experiences of PHC professionals, internal facilitators, and managers working with health promotion after receiving the 12-month implementation intervention.
methodsA qualitative study was conducted at five PHC units in Sweden using interviews with managers (n = 9) and internal facilitators (n = 10) and focus group discussions (n = 5) with physicians, nurses, counsellors, and physiotherapists (n = 18). The data were analysed with qualitative content analysis, first inductively and then deductively by mapping the data against the 12 constructs of Normalization Process Theory.
resultsImplementation of the health-promoting practice was affected by contextual factors such as attitudes and available resources. The group dynamics at the PHC centres and the managers’ role as leaders were important for finding solutions to enact the health-promotion practice. Health-promotion practice was seen as a natural development of PHC. A common focus and opportunity to influence created a sense of coherence. Feelings of autonomy enabled the professionals to collaborate and strengthened participation in the implementation intervention. The internal facilitators helped to guide the PHC centres forward in the implementation process and created strategies to integrate the health-promotion practice into existing clinical practice. Uptake of the clinical intervention led to a more structural and holistic way of working with lifestyle habits, with patients taking an active part. The professionals’ competencies became more visible by working together, but frustration was also expressed due to different levels of engagement in the health-promotion practice.
conclusionsHealth-promotion practice can be normalized as routine work in PHC with targeted support but requires tailored strategies that rely on existing group dynamics and the manager’s role. To create motivation for providing health promotion, inter-professional collaboration is a key factor that ensures shared ownership of the implementation intervention.
trial registrationThis study is part of the Act in Time project, registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on 4 March 2021 (ref NCT04 799860).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.