Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37723546›Full record

ReviewImplementation science communications2023

Using normalisation process theory for intervention development, implementation and refinement in musculoskeletal and orthopaedic interventions: a qualitative systematic review.

Hayley Carter, David Beard, Alison Harvey, Paul Leighton, Fiona Moffatt, Benjamin Smith, Kate Webster, Pip Logan

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Implementation science communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Hayley CarterPhysiotherapy Outpatients, Level 3, Florence Nightingale Community Hospital, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, DE1 2QY, UK. hayley.carter1@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0837-0802
David BeardSurgical Intervention Trials Unit, Botnar Research Centre, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Windmill Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
Alison HarveyPhysiotherapy Outpatients, Level 3, Florence Nightingale Community Hospital, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, DE1 2QY, UK.
Paul LeightonSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK.
Fiona MoffattSchool of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2HA, UK.
Benjamin SmithPhysiotherapy Outpatients, Level 3, Florence Nightingale Community Hospital, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, DE1 2QY, UK.
Kate WebsterHealth Sciences 3 Building, La Trobe University, Kingsbury Drive, Bundoora, VIC, 3086, Australia.
Pip LoganSchool of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK.
University of Nottingham · GBLa Trobe University · AULondon Road Community Hospital · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR302104
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNormalisation process theory (NPT) provides researchers with a set of tools to support the understanding of the implementation, normalisation and sustainment of an intervention in practice. Previous reviews of published research have explored NPT's use in the implementation processes of healthcare interventions. However, its utility in intervention research, specifically in orthopaedic and musculoskeletal interventions, remains unclear. The aim of this review is to explore how NPT (including extended NPT, ENPT) has been used in orthopaedic/musculoskeletal intervention research.

methodsA qualitative systematic review was conducted. Two bibliographic databases (Scopus and Web of Science) and a search engine (Google Scholar) were searched for peer-reviewed journal articles citing key papers outlining the development of NPT, related methods, tools or the web-based toolkit. We included studies of any method, including protocols, and did not exclude based on published language. A data extraction tool was developed, and data were analysed using a framework approach.

resultsCitation searches, of the 12 key studies, revealed 10,420 citations. Following duplicate removal, title, abstract and full-text screening, 14 papers from 12 studies were included. There were 8 key findings assessed against GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research). Five were of high confidence supporting NPT/ENPT's use in the implementation process for interventions targeting a range of MSK/orthopaedic conditions. NPT/ENPT offers a useful analytical lens to focus attention and consider implementation factors robustly. There is limited evidence for the selection of NPT/ENPT and for the use of the Normalisation Measure Development instrument. Three findings of moderate confidence suggest that coherence is seen as a fundamental initial step in implementation, there is limited evidence that study population limits NPT's utility and the application of ENPT may pose a challenge to researchers.

conclusionThis review demonstrates NPT's utility in supporting intervention implementation for orthopaedic and musculoskeletal conditions. We have theorised the benefits ENPT offers to intervention development and refinement and recommend future researchers consider its use. We also encourage future researchers to offer clear justification for NPT's use in their methodology.

trial registrationThe review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022358558).

Indexed as

Complex interventionsExtended normalisation process theoryMusculoskeletal conditionsNoMADNormalisation process theoryOrthopaedic conditions

Identifiers

PMID37723546
PMCPMC10506319
OpenAlexW4386832435

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.