Establishing an updated consensus on the conceptual and operational definitions of Making Every Contact Count (MECC) across experts within research and practice: an international Delphi Study.

OBJECTIVES: The Making Every Contact Count (MECC) initiative is broadly defined as an opportunistic approach to prevention by making use of the thousands of conversations service providers have with service users every day. However, since its conception, the application of MECC has diverged and developed considerably. Thus, the current study aimed to revise the definition according to current research and practice to better describe what is and is not included. STUDY DESIGN: A consensus building classic Delphi methodology, completed by an expert panel. METHODS: Round 1 asked open questions around the definition of MECC. Content analysis of round 1 identified statements that were rated for agreement in round 2. Statements achieving ≥80% agreement were included in a short, long, or operational definition of MECC that were rated for agreement in round 3 (the minimum number required). An agreement of ≥80% indicated consensus. RESULTS: Forty out of 100 contacted experts completed three rounds. Experts in practice and research were recruited internationally although most were from England. From round 1, 274 statements were generated, of which 96 achieved consensus and were included within round 3. The short and long definition received consensus in round 3, the operational definition required four rounds to reach consensus. CONCLUSIONS: MECC is a person-centred approach to health behaviour change that, provided an individual possesses the relevant skills, can be delivered by anyone and anywhere. The distinguishing feature of MECC is not in its duration, target behaviour, or conditions for delivery, but rather in the approach taken and the mechanisms applied to conversations. Implications for research and practice are discussed, and the limits for applicability acknowledged.

Predictive validity of the UKCAT for medical school undergraduate performance: a national prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The UK Clinical Aptitude Test (UKCAT) has been shown to have a modest but statistically significant ability to predict aspects of academic performance throughout medical school. Previously, this ability has been shown to be incremental to conventional measures of educational performance for the first year of medical school. This study evaluates whether this predictive ability extends throughout the whole of undergraduate medical study and explores the potential impact of using the test as a selection screening tool. METHODS: This was an observational prospective study, linking UKCAT scores, prior educational attainment and sociodemographic variables with subsequent academic outcomes during the 5 years of UK medical undergraduate training. The participants were 6812 entrants to UK medical schools in 2007-8 using the UKCAT. The main outcome was academic performance at each year of medical school. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was also conducted, treating the UKCAT as a screening test for a negative academic outcome (failing at least 1 year at first attempt). RESULTS: All four of the UKCAT scale scores significantly predicted performance in theory- and skills-based exams. After adjustment for prior educational achievement, the UKCAT scale scores remained significantly predictive for most years. Findings from the ROC analysis suggested that, if used as a sole screening test, with the mean applicant UKCAT score as the cut-off, the test could be used to reject candidates at high risk of failing at least 1 year at first attempt. However, the 'number needed to reject' value would be high (at 1.18), with roughly one candidate who would have been likely to pass all years at first sitting being rejected for every higher risk candidate potentially declined entry on this basis. CONCLUSIONS: The UKCAT scores demonstrate a statistically significant but modest degree of incremental predictive validity throughout undergraduate training. Whilst the UKCAT could be considered a fairly crude screening tool for future academic performance, it may offer added value when used in conjunction with other selection measures. Future work should focus on the optimum role of such tests within the selection process and the prediction of post-graduate performance.