ArticleImplementation science communications2023
Validation of the German Normalisation Process Theory Measure G-NoMAD: translation, adaptation, and pilot testing.
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.
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.
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.
Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of the Application of an Electronic Medication Management Support System in Patients With Polypharmacy in General Practice (AdAM).
ImpleMentAll - Towards Evidence-based Tailored Implementation Strategies for eHealth
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of structured lactation support and human donor milk banking in German NICUs: a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial.BMC medicine · 2026Trial
- Patterns of CDSS adoption in primary care: a cluster analysis and predictive modelling study from a stepped wedge trial.Implementation science : IS · 2026Trial
- APOSCREEN-1 - a prospective, single-arm clinical trial for the implementation of a pharmacy-based screening for cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic risk factors in Schleswig-Holstein.BMC nephrology · 2026Trial
- Article
- Primary Care Physicians' Experiences with Integrated Mental Health Specialist Video Consultations-A Normalization Process Theory-Based Mixed-Methods Evaluation.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Towards Sex- and Gender-Sensitive Pain Management: Participatory Development of the GESCO Intervention for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain and Long-Term Opioid Therapy in Primary Care.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- Implementation process and acceptability of the electronic community health information system among community health workers in Kenya.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- A multicentre validation study of the Swedish version of the Normalization Process Theory Measure S-NoMAD.Implementation science communications · 2025Article
- Development and feasibility of a sex- and gender-sensitive primary care intervention for patients with chronic non-cancer pain receiving long-term opioid therapy (GESCO): a study protocol.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2024Article
- Psychometric properties of two implementation measures: Normalization MeAsure Development questionnaire (NoMAD) and organizational readiness for implementing change (ORIC).Implementation research and practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.