Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28827231›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Supporting the use of theory in cross-country health services research: a participatory qualitative approach using Normalisation Process Theory as an example.

Catherine A O'Donnell, Frances S Mair, Christopher Dowrick, Mary O'Reilly-de Brún, Tomas de Brún, Nicola Burns, Christos Lionis, Aristoula Saridaki, Maria Papadakaki, Maria van den Muijsenbergh and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The Other "A" Word: Assessing the Accessibility of Abortion in Academia.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.

Catherine A O'DonnellGeneral Practice and Primary Care, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, College of MVLS, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5368-3779
Frances S MairGeneral Practice and Primary Care, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, College of MVLS, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Christopher DowrickInstitute of Psychology, Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Mary O'Reilly-de BrúnDiscipline of General Practice, School of Medicine, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
Tomas de BrúnDiscipline of General Practice, School of Medicine, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
Nicola BurnsGeneral Practice and Primary Care, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, College of MVLS, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Christos LionisFaculty of Medicine, University of Crete, Heraklion, Greece.
Aristoula SaridakiFaculty of Medicine, University of Crete, Heraklion, Greece.
Maria PapadakakiFaculty of Medicine, University of Crete, Heraklion, Greece.
Maria van den MuijsenberghDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Evelyn van Weel-BaumgartenDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Katja GravenhorstInstitute of Psychology, Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Lucy CooperInstitute of Psychology, Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Christine PrinczCentre for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Erik TeunissenDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Francine van den Driessen MareeuwDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Maria VlahadiFaculty of Medicine, University of Crete, Heraklion, Greece.
Wolfgang SpiegelCentre for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Anne MacFarlaneGraduate Entry Medical School, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity of Crete · GRUniversity of Liverpool · GBMedical University of Vienna · ATOllscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway · IEUniversity of Glasgow · GBFurness College · GBUniversity of Limerick · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo describe and reflect on the process of designing and delivering a training programme supporting the use of theory, in this case Normalisation Process Theory (NPT), in a multisite cross-country health services research study.

designParticipatory research approach using qualitative methods.

settingSix European primary care settings involving research teams from Austria, England, Greece, Ireland, The Netherlands and Scotland.

participantsRESTORE research team consisting of 8 project applicants, all senior primary care academics, and 10 researchers. Professional backgrounds included general practitioners/family doctors, social/cultural anthropologists, sociologists and health services/primary care researchers. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Views of all research team members (n=18) were assessed using qualitative evaluation methods, analysed qualitatively by the trainers after each session.

resultsMost of the team had no experience of using NPT and many had not applied theory to prospective, qualitative research projects. Early training proved didactic and overloaded participants with information. Drawing on RESTORE's methodological approach of Participatory Learning and Action, workshops using role play, experiential interactive exercises and light-hearted examples not directly related to the study subject matter were developed. Evaluation showed the study team quickly grew in knowledge and confidence in applying theory to fieldwork.Recommendations applicable to other studies include: accepting that theory application is not a linear process, that time is needed to address researcher concerns with the process, and that experiential, interactive learning is a key device in building conceptual and practical knowledge. An unanticipated benefit was the smooth transition to cross-country qualitative coding of study data.

conclusionA structured programme of training enhanced and supported the prospective application of a theory, NPT, to our work but raised challenges. These were not unique to NPT but could arise with the application of any theory, especially in large multisite, international projects. The lessons learnt are applicable to other theoretically informed studies.

Indexed as

EuropeHealth PersonnelHealth Services ResearchHumansPrimary Health CareProgram DevelopmentQualitative ResearchHealth services researchNormalisation Process Theory.TheoryTraining

Identifiers

PMID28827231
PMCPMC5724160
OpenAlexW2612602127

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.