Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32401224›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2020

The NASSS-CAT Tools for Understanding, Guiding, Monitoring, and Researching Technology Implementation Projects in Health and Social Care: Protocol for an Evaluation Study in Real-World Settings.

Trisha Greenhalgh, Harvey Maylor, Sara Shaw, Joseph Wherton, Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Victoria Betton, Natalie Nelissen, Andreas Gremyr, Alexander Rushforth, Mona Koshkouei and 1 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07399106 (EN-CAMHS 2), which is not on this map. Cited by 87 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing papers in PubMed, 7 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.

NCT07399106 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

EN-CAMHS 2: Enhancing CAMHS Referrals

TypeobservationalSponsorGreater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation TrustRan2026 to 2026Enrolled235ConditionsNo Conditions, Improving Referrals Into NHS CAMHSArmsWork Package 1, Work Package 2, Work Package 3, Work Package 4
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

87 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

27 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

11 authors.

Trisha GreenhalghDepartment of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2369-8088
Harvey MaylorSaid Business School, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8629-1026
Sara ShawDepartment of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7014-4793
Joseph WhertonDepartment of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7701-4783
Chrysanthi PapoutsiDepartment of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1189-7100
Victoria BettonmHabitat, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4043-5004
Natalie NelissenmHabitat, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2455-8143
Andreas GremyrDepartment of Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders (Psykiatri Psykos), Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6153-2957
Alexander RushforthDepartment of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3352-943X
Mona KoshkoueiDepartment of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0831-8198
John TaylorDepartment of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9377-2971

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProjects to implement health care and social care innovations involving technologies are typically ambitious and complex. Many projects fail. Greenhalgh et al's nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) framework was developed to analyze the varied outcomes of such projects.

objectiveWe sought to extend the NASSS framework to produce practical tools for understanding, guiding, monitoring, and researching technology projects in health care or social care settings.

methodsBuilding on NASSS and a complexity assessment tool (CAT), the NASSS-CAT tools were developed (in various formats) in seven co-design workshops involving 50 stakeholders (industry executives, technical designers, policymakers, managers, clinicians, and patients). Using action research, they were and are being tested prospectively on a sample of case studies selected for variety in conditions, technologies, settings, scope and scale, policy context, and project goals.

resultsThe co-design process resulted in four tools, available as free downloads. NASSS-CAT SHORT is a taster to introduce the instrument and gauge interest. NASSS-CAT LONG is intended to support reflection, due diligence, and preliminary planning. It maps complexity through stakeholder discussion across six domains, using free-text open questions (designed to generate a rich narrative and surface uncertainties and interdependencies) and a closed-question checklist; this version includes an action planning section. NASSS-CAT PROJECT is a 35-item instrument for monitoring how subjective complexity in a technology implementation project changes over time. NASSS-CAT INTERVIEW is a set of prompts for conducting semistructured research or evaluation interviews. Preliminary data from empirical case studies suggest that the NASSS-CAT tools can potentially identify, but cannot always help reconcile, contradictions and conflicts that block projects' progress.

conclusionsThe NASSS-CAT tools are a useful addition to existing implementation tools and frameworks. Further support of the implementation projects is ongoing. We are currently producing digital versions of the tools, and plan (subject to further funding) to establish an online community of practice for people interested in using and improving the tools, and hold workshops for building cross-project collaborations. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/16861.

Indexed as

complexitydiffusion of innovationevaluationimplementationinnovation adoptionNASSS (nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, sustainability) frameworkproject managementscale-upsustainabilitytheory-driven evaluation

Identifiers

PMID32401224
PMCPMC7254278

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.