Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30442093›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2018

Improving the normalization of complex interventions: part 1 - development of the NoMAD instrument for assessing implementation work based on normalization process theory (NPT).

Tim Rapley, Melissa Girling, Frances S Mair, Elizabeth Murray, Shaun Treweek, Elaine McColl, Ian Nicholas Steen, Carl R May, Tracy L Finch

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 105 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
105citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT04461561 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Using Normalization Process Theory to Evaluate Providing Pediatric Palliative Care at End-of-Life as Web-Based Training Intervention for Nurses:

TypeinterventionalSponsorAltoosi University CollegeRan2020 to 2021Enrolled172ConditionsCancer, Cardiac Anomaly, Cystic Fibrosis, Muscular DystrophyArmsend-of-life nursing education consortium-pediatric palliative care as web based-training plus usual care
NCT06264362 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Developing a Nonpharmacological Pain Intervention for Community-dwelling Older Adults With Dementia

TypeinterventionalSponsorDrexel UniversityRan2025 to 2027Enrolled40ConditionsPain, Chronic, Dementia, Mild, Mobility Limitation, Physical DisabilityArmsTailored Physical Activity Program
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

105 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

45 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

9 authors.

Tim RapleyDepartment of Social Work, Education and Community Wellbeing, Northumbria University, Coach Lane Campus West, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE7 7XA, UK. Tim.Rapley@northumbria.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-4836-4279
Melissa GirlingInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK.
Frances S MairInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, 1 Horselethill Road, Glasgow, G12 9LX, UK.
Elizabeth MurrayResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, Upper Floor 3, Royal Free Hospital, Rowland Hill Street, London, NW3 2PF, UK.
Shaun TreweekHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, 3rd Floor, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK.
Elaine McCollInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK.
Ian Nicholas SteenInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK.
Carl R MayFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK.
Tracy L FinchDepartment of Nursing, Midwifery and Health, Northumbria University, Coach Lane Campus West, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE7 7XA, UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU1Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding and measuring implementation processes is a key challenge for implementation researchers. This study draws on Normalization Process Theory (NPT) to develop an instrument that can be applied to assess, monitor or measure factors likely to affect normalization from the perspective of implementation participants.

methodsAn iterative process of instrument development was undertaken using the following methods: theoretical elaboration, item generation and item reduction (team workshops); item appraisal (QAS-99); cognitive testing with complex intervention teams; theory re-validation with NPT experts; and pilot testing of instrument.

resultsWe initially generated 112 potential questionnaire items; these were then reduced to 47 through team workshops and item appraisal. No concerns about item wording and construction were raised through the item appraisal process. We undertook three rounds of cognitive interviews with professionals (n = 30) involved in the development, evaluation, delivery or reception of complex interventions. We identified minor issues around wording of some items; universal issues around how to engage with people at different time points in an intervention; and conceptual issues around the types of people for whom the instrument should be designed. We managed these by adding extra items (n = 6) and including a new set of option responses: 'not relevant at this stage', 'not relevant to my role' and 'not relevant to this intervention' and decided to design an instrument explicitly for those people either delivering or receiving an intervention. This version of the instrument had 53 items. Twenty-three people with a good working knowledge of NPT reviewed the items for theoretical drift. Items that displayed a poor alignment with NPT sub-constructs were removed (n = 8) and others revised or combined (n = 6). The final instrument, with 43 items, was successfully piloted with five people, with a 100% completion rate of items.

conclusionThe process of moving through cycles of theoretical translation, item generation, cognitive testing, and theoretical (re)validation was essential for maintaining a balance between the theoretical integrity of the NPT concepts and the ease with which intended respondents could answer the questions. The final instrument could be easily understood and completed, while retaining theoretical validity. NoMAD represents a measure that can be used to understand implementation participants' experiences. It is intended as a measure that can be used alongside instruments that measure other dimensions of implementation activity, such as implementation fidelity, adoption, and readiness.

Indexed as

CognitionImplementation ScienceSurveys and QuestionnairesDelivery of Health CareHealth Services ResearchHumansInterview, PsychologicalPilot ProjectsComplex interventionsImplementation processInstrument developmentNoMADNormalization process theoryNPTQuestionnaire

Identifiers

PMID30442093
PMCPMC6238361

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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 OpenQuestion graph.