ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
The Nursing Implementation Complexity Tool for Digital Technology Implementation in Nursing: Design Science Research Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Implementing digital health technologies is challenging because implementation is shaped by interacting technical, organizational, professional, and contextual factors. Although implementation frameworks such as the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework support understanding this complexity, translating them into practical tools for routine implementation remains difficult. Objective: This study aimed to develop and evaluate the Nursing Implementation Complexity Tool (NICT), a theory-informed implementation reflection tool designed to operationalize the NASSS framework and support implementation-related reflection and decision-making for digital technology implementation in nursing. Methods: This Design Science Research study combined 4 iterative development phases with a convergent mixed methods evaluation. The development of the NICT was informed by an umbrella review, 3 mixed methods case studies, and the German adaptation of the NASSS Complexity Assessment Tool (NASSS-CAT-D). Following iterative development and expert review, the NICT was evaluated through workshops with nursing professionals, prospective nursing leaders, and nursing students. A summative evaluation included an online survey (28 participants completed the questionnaire) and think-aloud interviews (8 participants). Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively, qualitative data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis, and findings were integrated during interpretation. Results: The NICT comprises 3 complementary components: a guideline, a visual canvas, and a pocket card organized around 4 reflection domains. Across the formative and summative evaluations, participants consistently perceived the NICT as a useful and well-structured implementation reflection tool. In the summative evaluation, 24 of 26 (92.3%) participants agreed that the NICT had a logical structure, and 24 of 26 (92.3%) agreed that it supported structured reflection on implementation-related factors. Qualitative findings showed that the NICT facilitated discussion of implementation determinants, stakeholder perspectives, and contextual influences while also highlighting the importance of practical guidance, examples, and facilitation to support its application. Conclusions: The NICT supports nursing professionals and other implementation stakeholders in recognizing, discussing, and addressing implementation complexity through structured reflection. Rather than reducing complexity itself, it facilitates implementation-related reflection and informed decision-making. Beyond its application in nursing, this study illustrates how conceptual frameworks for understanding implementation complexity can be translated into structured, practice-oriented reflection tools for digital health implementation.
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.