Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32178624›Full record

SynthesisBMC family practice2020

Application of normalisation process theory in understanding implementation processes in primary care settings in the UK: a systematic review.

Lisa Huddlestone, Jessica Turner, Helen Eborall, Nicky Hudson, Melanie Davies, Graham Martin

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC family practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

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

69 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Take-home naloxone in multicentre emergency settings: the TIME feasibility cluster RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. AI in primary care - a general practitioner's bucket list.The European journal of general practice · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

9 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

6 authors.

Lisa HuddlestoneDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, George Davies Centre, University Road, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK. lisa.huddlestone@york.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8054-4475
Jessica TurnerSchool of Applied Social Sciences, De Montfort University, Hawthorn Building, The Gateway, Leicester, LE1 9BH, UK.
Helen EborallDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, George Davies Centre, University Road, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK.
Nicky HudsonSchool of Applied Social Sciences, De Montfort University, Hawthorn Building, The Gateway, Leicester, LE1 9BH, UK.
Melanie DaviesDiabetes Research Centre, Affiliated with the Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Road, Leicester, LE5 4PW, UK.
Graham MartinThe Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute (THIS Institute), University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Clifford Allbutt Building, Cambridge, CB2 0AH, UK.

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-1212-20004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNormalisation Process Theory (NPT) provides a framework to understand how interventions are implemented, embedded, and integrated in healthcare settings. Previous reviews of published literature have examined the application of NPT across international healthcare and reports its benefits. However, given the distinctive clinical function, organisational arrangements and the increasing management of people with a wide variety of conditions in primary care settings in the United Kingdom, it is important to understand how and why authors utilise and reflect on NPT in such settings to inform and evaluate implementation processes.

methodsA systematic review of peer-reviewed literature using NPT in primary care settings in the United Kingdom (UK) was conducted. Eight electronic databases were searched using replicable methods to identify articles published between January 2012 and April 2018. Data were analysed using a framework approach.

resultsThirty-one articles met the inclusion criteria. Researchers utilised NPT to explore the implementation of interventions, targeting a wide range of health services and conditions, within primary care settings in the UK. NPT was mostly applied qualitatively; however, a small number of researchers have moved towards mixed and quantitative methods. Some variation was observed in the use of NPT constructs and sub-constructs, and whether and how researchers undertook modification to make them more relevant to the implementation process and multiple stakeholder perspectives.

conclusionNPT provides a flexible framework for the development and evaluation of complex healthcare interventions in UK primary care settings. This review updates the literature on NPT use and indicates that its application is well suited to these environments, particularly in supporting patients with long-term conditions and co-morbidities. We recommend future research explores the receipt of interventions by multiple stakeholders and suggest that authors reflect on justifications for using NPT in their reporting.

Indexed as

Evaluation Studies as TopicPrimary Health CareHumansImplementation ScienceQuality ImprovementUnited KingdomComplex interventionsGeneral practiceNormalisation process theoryNPTPrimary careUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID32178624
PMCPMC7075013

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.