Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37845776›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2023

Validation of the German Normalisation Process Theory Measure G-NoMAD: translation, adaptation, and pilot testing.

Johanna Freund, Alexandra Piotrowski, Leah Bührmann, Caroline Oehler, Ingrid Titzler, Anna-Lena Netter, Sebastian Potthoff, David Daniel Ebert, Tracy Finch, Juliane Köberlein-Neu and 1 more

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2023. 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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT03430336 nacompletednot on this map

Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of the Application of an Electronic Medication Management Support System in Patients With Polypharmacy in General Practice (AdAM).

TypeinterventionalSponsorBARMERRan2018 to 2021Enrolled12,000ConditionsPolypharmacyArmsCDSS provides drug-therapy relevant information, Modification of medication, Assessment of medication appropriateness, Medication plan, Guidance in medication process
NCT03652883 nacompletednot on this map

ImpleMentAll - Towards Evidence-based Tailored Implementation Strategies for eHealth

TypeinterventionalSponsorVU University of AmsterdamRan2018 to 2020Enrolled456ConditionsTailored Implementation: Online ItFits-toolkit, Implementation as UsualArmsItFits-toolkit, Implementation as Usual
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

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

Johanna FreundProfessorship Psychology & Digital Mental Health Care, Department of Sport and Health Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Georg-Brauchle-Ring 60/62, Munich, 80992, Germany. johanna.freund@tum.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0038-9330
Alexandra PiotrowskiCenter for Health Economics and Health Services Research, Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany.
Leah BührmannDepartment of Social Work, Education and Community Wellbeing, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Caroline OehlerGerman Depression Foundation, Leipzig, Germany.
Ingrid TitzlerDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Anna-Lena NetterDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology, Philipps University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Sebastian PotthoffDepartment of Social Work, Education and Community Wellbeing, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
David Daniel EbertProfessorship Psychology & Digital Mental Health Care, Department of Sport and Health Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Georg-Brauchle-Ring 60/62, Munich, 80992, Germany.
Tracy FinchDepartment of Nursing, Midwifery and Health, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Juliane Köberlein-NeuCenter for Health Economics and Health Services Research, Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany.
Anne EtzelmüllerProfessorship Psychology & Digital Mental Health Care, Department of Sport and Health Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Georg-Brauchle-Ring 60/62, Munich, 80992, Germany.

Funding

European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme 733025Innovation Fund of the German Federal Joint Committee 01NVF16006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImplementing evidence-based healthcare practices (EBPs) is a complex endeavour and often lags behind research-informed decision processes. Understanding and systematically improving implementation using implementation theory can help bridge the gap between research findings and practice. This study aims to translate, pilot, and validate a German version of the English NoMAD questionnaire (G-NoMAD), an instrument derived from the Normalisation Process Theory, to explore the implementation of EBPs.

methodsSurvey data has been collected in four German research projects and subsequently combined into a validation data set. Two versions of the G-NoMAD existed, independently translated from the original English version by two research groups. A measurement invariance analysis was conducted, comparing latent scale structures between groups of respondents to both versions. After determining the baseline model, the questionnaire was tested for different degrees of invariance (configural, metric, scalar, and uniqueness) across samples. A confirmatory factor analysis for three models (a four-factor, a unidimensional, and a hierarchical model) was used to examine the theoretical structure of the G-NoMAD. Finally, psychometric results were discussed in a consensus meeting, and the final instructions, items, and scale format were consented to.

resultsA total of 539 health care professionals completed the questionnaire. The results of the measurement invariance analysis showed configural, partial metric, and partial scalar invariance indicating that the questionnaire versions are comparable. Internal consistency ranged from acceptable to good (0.79 ≤ α ≤ 0.85) per subscale. Both the four factor and the hierarchical model achieved a better fit than the unidimensional model, with indices from acceptable (SRMR = 0.08) to good (CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.96). However, the RMSEA values were only close to acceptable (four-factor model: χ2164 = 1029.84, RMSEA = 0.10; hierarchical model: χ2166 = 1073.43, RMSEA = 0.10).

conclusionsThe G-NoMAD provides a reliable and promising tool to measure the degree of normalisation among individuals involved in implementation activities. Since the fit was similar in the four-factor and the hierarchical model, priority should be given to the practical relevance of the hierarchical model, including a total score and four subscale scores. The findings of this study support the further usage of the G-NoMAD in German implementation settings.

trial registrationBoth the AdAM project (No. NCT03430336, 06/02/2018) and the EU-project ImpleMentAll (No. NCT03652883, 29/08/2018) were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. The ImplementIT study was registered at the German Clinical Trial Registration (No. DRKS00017078, 18/04/2019). The G-NoMAD validation study was registered at the Open Science Framework (No7u9ab, 17/04/2023).

Indexed as

Implementation outcomesImplementation ScienceInstrument developmentNoMADNormalisation process theoryNPTPsychometricsValidation

Identifiers

PMID37845776
PMCPMC10578017

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.