Contribution to the literature
-
Normalisation Process Theory is widely used to design complex interventions, and to understand the dynamics of implementation processes and their outcomes.
-
Normalisation Process Theory has been developed through several iterations, and this paper consolidates these into a single, empirically grounded, translational framework for implementation and evaluation research.
-
This paper describes the development of a Normalisation Process Theory coding manual for qualitative research and instrument design, and it presents the coding manual ready to use.
-
The coding manual links the primary constructs of Normalisation Process Theory to the Context-Mechanism-Outcome framework of realist evaluation.
Background
Any researcher who wishes to become proficient at doing qualitative analysis must learn to code well and easily. The excellence of the research rests in large part on the excellence of the coding.Anselm Strauss [1]
Methods
CMO domain | NPT construct | Description and example |
---|---|---|
Implementation contexts: Contexts are patterns of social relations and structures that unfold over time and across settings. They make up the implementation environment. |
Strategic intentions [11] |
Description: How do contexts shape the formulation and planning of interventions and their components? [11].
Example: ‘The analysis centres on English primary care and in particular on the issue of how healthcare professions are affected by, and in turn affect, the interpretation and adoption of new services. We use the case of the implementation of evidence-based approaches for managing patients with osteoarthritis. This musculoskeletal problem occurs in a high proportion of GP consultations, and is projected to increase due to a rapidly ageing population in the western world’ [29]. |
Adaptive execution [10] |
Description: How do contexts affect the ways in which users can find and enact workarounds that make an intervention and its components a workable proposition in practice? [11].
Example: ‘Huge effort was expended and continues to be required to implement and keep this technology in use. This innovation must be understood both as a computer technology and as a set of practices related to that technology, kept in place by a network of actors in particular contexts. While technologies can be ‘made to work’ in different settings, successful implementation has been achieved, and will only be maintained, through the efforts of those involved in the specific settings and if the wider context continues to support the coherence, cognitive participation, and reflective monitoring processes that surround this collective action. Implementation is more than simply putting technologies in place – it requires new resources and considerable effort, perhaps on an on-going basis’ [30]. | |
Negotiating capacity [10] |
Description: How do contexts affect the extent that an intervention and its components can fit, or be integrated, into existing ways of working by their users? [11].
Example: ‘Aligning IPC guidelines with local clinical context is an essential means to reduce the sense of dissonance and represents a critical step forward towards successful implementation. Some strategies described in the literature to promote alignment include: integration of IPC recommendations within other established programmes; and education and audit interventions acknowledging the positive and negative beliefs of staff on IPC practices [31]. | |
Reframing organisational logics [10] |
Description: How do existing social structural and social cognitive resources shape the implementation environment? [11].
Example: ‘The external and internal partnership building were key and also strategic, so as not to impose ERAS but to co-create it from the ground up. This relational work, as framed in the NPT, is deceptively complex as it involves convincing others that this is a legitimate improvement programme worth participating in without devaluing their current practice and beliefs. The interprofessional and interdepartmental relationships the champion teams established appeared to lay an important foundation for accepting changes and the data reports as meaningful and embedding ERAS into everyday practice’ [32]. | |
Implementation mechanisms: Mechanisms are revealed through purposive social action—collaborative work—that involves the investment of personal and group resources to achieve goals |
Coherence building [7] |
Description: How do people work together in everyday settings to understand and plan the activities that need to be accomplished to put an intervention and its components into practice? [11].
Example: ‘Coherence was achieved around the CDSS despite local context variation. Across all three sites there was agreement that the CDSS was suitable for the (varied) tasks and that appropriate resources were in place to enable effective implementation, although these varied between settings. There were differences between settings where the CDSS replaced an established system with existing staff and where the service and/or the staff were new and the work of establishing coherence had to be altered to reflect this. It was clear that knowledge, experience and work identities built through doing call-handling work influenced the coherence of the CDSS for staff in the different settings. What is especially interesting in the wider policy context – where this same CDSS is now being used to support a national ‘111’ urgent care service (...) is that coherence was not just a local ‘problem’, it was necessarily underpinned by wider understandings and discourses for example about the necessity of rationing and the need to modify caller/patient behaviour and beyond that the very legitimacy of evidence based medicine and the kinds of expert knowledge which underpinned the CDSS’ [30]. |
Cognitive participation [7] |
Description: How do people work together to create networks of participation and communities of practice around interventions and their components? [11]
Example: ‘Cognitive participation relates to the work that participants undertake to build up and sustain a community of practice around an intervention. In terms of CST, participants identified training as an important factor in generating their own and their colleagues’ interest in CST and thus ensuring all stakeholders were involved. Staff were further motivated to continue running the groups within their service through observing the direct beneficial effects of CST on clients’ [33]. | |
Collective action [7] |
Description: How do people work together to enact interventions and their components? [11].
Example: ‘The daily tasks involved in carrying out Point of Care (POC) testing were deciding which tests (if any) to take for each patient when they arrived; communicating this to others; taking the blood; running the tests; examining the results; communicating the results to others; and deciding what action to take accordingly. This work was allocated to different staff according to their skills and availability. Close teamwork appeared key to ensuring that each task was performed by an appropriate person at the necessary time’ [34]. | |
Reflexive monitoring [7] |
Description: How do people work together to appraise interventions and their components? [11].
Example: ‘Data provision by the laboratories proved to be difficult despite the standardized format. The database manager at the central level reported he had to put much effort in getting the data from the system administrator from the laboratories because they did not prioritize data delivery. It was reported by them that saving the data extraction queries, as the research group suggested, for use in the next time period was increasingly helpful in the course of the implementation period. By fine-tuning these queries after each extraction, the quality of the delivered data improved’ [35]. | |
Implementation outcomes: The practical effects of implementation mechanisms at work |
Intervention performance [6] |
Description: What practices have changed as the result of interventions and their components being operationalized, enacted, reproduced, over time and across settings? [11]
Example: ‘The bed-monitoring technologies were felt to be useful in helping staff identify patterns in resident behaviour and explore reasons for these behaviours. The bed sensors at Sycamore Lane were capable of recording clinical data such as heart rate, but the manager reported that “it’s not something that we use readily”, and this functionality was never observed in use during the present study. The location-based system at Conifer Gardens was similarly able to record data, including information about resident mobility activity. This functionality had initially been anticipated as potentially useful for enhancing clinical understanding, however, the Occupational Therapist reflected that the time needed to analyze and interpret these data had been “a job in itself” and thus has been difficult to integrate into daily practice. There were questions about the clinical utility of some of the data, which appeared to become more pronounced when considering the financial expense of the technology’ [36]. |
Relational restructuring [10] |
Description: How have working with interventions and their components changed the ways people are organized and relate to each other? [11].
Example: ‘The CMs became “everyday representatives” for the secondary sector and were responsible for acting as bridge- builders between hospital psychiatry and general practice. Previous research on Nurse Practitioners/ Advanced Nurse Practitioners in general practice (...) has shown that if the clinics are not involved at an early stage and prepared thoroughly for the Nurse Practitioner's arrival, their integration in general practice is hampered. Preparation involves practical issues, a clearly defined role for the nurse practitioner, and organizational leadership, meaning that the managers of the responsible organization must be involved in the process of defining and supporting the role (...) The challenges also pointed towards a lack of managerial co-ordination of, and responsibility for, the practical issues associated with the CM's role in general practice. (...) This meant that on many occasions, the CMs had to take on the role of implementation ambassadors assuming responsibility for maintenance of the collaborative care model’ [37]. | |
Normative restructuring [10] |
Description: How have working with interventions and their components changed the norms, rules and resources that govern action? [11].
Example: ‘The first theme, trusting and embedding new relationships, is a reminder that while locally-led innovation is designed to address local problems, convincing others of its value is core work. This is particularly so when the innovation challenges professional norms and involves changes to traditional delivery models and renegotiation of professional roles (...). In this case, the findings are consistent with previous research which has indicated that the success of such innovations is dependent on the trust of all involved and the credibility of clinicians (...)’ [38]. | |
Sustainment (normalisation) [6] |
Description: How have interventions and their components become incorporated in practice? [11].
Example: ‘At the end of the project period, the pathway was integrated in daily practice in two of the six municipalities. In these municipalities the care pathway was found to have the potential of structuring the provision of home care services and collaboration with the GPs, and serving as a management tool to effect change and improve knowledge and skills. (...) The generic care pathway for elderly patients has a potential of improving follow-up in primary care by meeting professional and managerial needs for improved quality of care, as well as more efficient organization of home care services. However, implementation of this complex intervention in full-time running organizations was demanding and required’ [39]. |
NPT construct | Sub-construct | Description and example |
---|---|---|
Coherence: How do people work together to understand and plan the activities that need to be accomplished to put an intervention and its components into practice? [11]. |
Differentiation [7] |
Description: How do people distinguish interventions and their components from their current ways of working? [40].
Example: ‘In order to invest in ERAS individuals needed to be able to differentiate its practices favourably with those enacted pre-implementation. This required coherence work in understanding the potential patient benefits allied to its introduction. Participants provided divergent accounts when they compared ERAS to previous practice. A number of participants asserted that the introduction of ERAS had brought about considerable changes to their day-to-day practice. These changes included positive adjustments in the management of patients and required patients to play a more active role in their own recovery’ [32]. |
Communal specification [7] |
Description: How do people collectively agree about the purpose of interventions and their components? [40].
Example: ‘Another barrier to coherence was lack of communal specification, since not everyone considered they had been informed about the study or understood its aims and processes. This caused implementation problems for the homes and the research team. For the homes, the researchers’ reasons for examining potential benefits from the intervention to have a positive impact on the culture of care had not been strongly reflected’ [41]. | |
Individual specification [7] |
Description: How do people individually understand what interventions and their components require of them? [40].
Example: ‘One respondent felt discussing the new way to view the patients with the staff was a delicate issue. In the old care model, patients were usually only informed about the treatment whilst now, in the care model, patients were to be seen as partners. This was regarded as a shift in power and, at least for some physicians, it would be difficult to get used to’ [42]. | |
Internalisation [7] |
Description: How do people construct potential value of interventions and their components for their work? [40].
Example: ‘At this stage (initial introductory meetings), the value of the intervention was purely based on individuals’ interpretation of the information given by the research team and the “fit” with their own interests. The GPs in General Practice 8 provided their views at the end of the introductory meeting, saying that they liked the structure and more systematic approach to caring for people with OA and concluded that “it is nice to be able to try something that may make a difference”’ [43]. | |
Cognitive participation:
How do people work together to create networks of participation and communities of practice around interventions and their components? [11] |
Initiation [7] |
Description: How do key individuals drive interventions and their components forward? [40]
Example: ‘Participants described the new SDM work as requiring leaders to define the work, and then enrolling others to contribute collectively to the process. Identifying leadership support for SDM was challenging: clinical teams are not simple hierarchical units, and substantial autonomy exists, especially for experienced clinicians’ [44]. |
Enrolment [7] |
Description: How do people join in with interventions and their components? [40].
Example: ‘Clinic participants also re-ported that the intervention provided a model for improved interprofessional team collaboration, resulting in a greater understanding of clinicians’ roles and skill sets. Huddles were viewed as worth creating and maintaining, both for interprofessional team and patient benefits. Participants identified that the majority of patients were satisfied with the interprofessional approach to primary care’ [45]. | |
Legitimation [7] |
Description: How do people agree that interventions and their components are the right thing to do and should be part of their work? [40].
Example: ‘The respondents offered several explanations for resistance or lack of engagement: some staff felt that health promotion activities overstretched users’ resources and thus had a negative impact on their quality of life; others argued that health promotion activities did not respect personal preferences of users and staff (…) One of the important implementation ideas (…) was the concept of staff being role models for health promotion. As role models staff were[ expected to participate in different health promotion activities (like joining users for walks and meals) and to display a healthy lifestyle at work. In the four providers, such expectations were formulated and formalised by management or by key implementation staff to different extents. However, in all cases some staff did not buy into this idea; they felt that the elements of smoking cessation and healthier meals interfered with their usual lifestyle and personal preferences’ [46]. | |
Activation [7] |
Description: How do people continue to support interventions and their components? [40].
Example: ‘While, overall, this system has worked well, many participants referenced instances of long wait times and rerouting of calls to reach the neonatologist. Based on the care teams' appraisal and experience with this process, they suggested modeling the teleneonatology service activation after the emergency department's response system, for immediate and direct connection. Other suggestions include making the technology simple enough for ease of use, and to mount a camera (which can be controlled by the remote neonatologist) to the baby warmer’ [47]. | |
Collective action:
How do people work together to enact interventions and their components? [11]. |
Interactional workability [7] |
Description: How do people do the work required by interventions and their components? [40].
Example: ‘The rural allied health team indicated that telehealth technology provided ‘a whole range of other capabilities’, and considered it ‘safe and it’s appropriate and it’s an equivalent, if not better, sort of service that you can provide’. They were committed to the notion that telehealth could balance the unequal access to services across geographical locations, and were keen to pursue innovative ways of using telehealth technologies to allow them to provide complex distant therapy. In contrast to rural and experienced telehealth clinicians who were keen to utilise technology as part of their role and to deal with distance and isolation, urban clinicians with no exposure to telehealth reported more reservations about the safety and suitability of providing rehabilitation through telehealth. They generally felt that telehealth should be reserved for ‘people who are more autonomous and more capable and … straightforward’, rather than ‘real’ rehabilitation patients with complex issues. They felt that people who required rehabilitation often require a ‘hands on’ approach’ [48]. |
Relational integration [7] |
Description: How does using interventions and their components affect the confidence that people have in each other? [40].
Example: ‘Enhanced collegial discussion about FV and adherence to the safety measures, such as the home visiting policy and procedures introduced in (…) model, were important for nurses to feel safe and undertake the FV work. As implementation progressed, intervention nurses felt safer than comparison nurses when attending home visits (…). Relationships within teams and with FV services varied across the MCH intervention teams. High workloads, time constraints and a lack of nursing staff or relievers in some centres impacted on the organisation of the FV work at times. The nurse mentor role to provide secondary consultation, linkage to FV services and support for other MCH nurses had varied success. Due to time constraints and the often solo nature of MCH practice, most nurses preferred to discuss clinical issues with a nurse friend or co-worker at the time rather than try to contact the designated MOVE nurse mentor, with only 38% of nurses using the nurse mentor role early in the trial. This increased to 52% as time went on. If the nurse was not comfortable speaking and had insufficient time or access to the nurse mentor, then this aspect of the model was lost’ [49]. | |
Skill-set workability [7] |
Description: How is the work of interventions and their components appropriately allocated to people? [40].
Example: ‘A key theme identified in the literature and through this study is the need for more training for practitioners. This includes training both in professional education and continuing educational opportunities for all practitioners. Medical, nursing and allied health education programs need to improve LGBT curriculum content (…). Providing education on general terminology, healthcare needs specific to the transgender population, and practitioners’ role in providing healthcare for this population will better prepare new practitioners for serving this community. Increased access to continuing education with LGBT content will help to increase the knowledge and skill of current practitioners. Embedding LGBT content within current programs of continuing education may increase awareness more than having specific LGBT courses (…). Embedding it in current programs may bring awareness to the concepts and highlight the need for practitioners to seek out more specific training to address their learning gaps’ [50]. | |
Contextual integration [7] |
Description: How is the work of interventions and their components supported by host organizations? [40].
Example: ‘Since POs were able to self-select into the pilot, the alignment of PO priorities with participation in a pilot on care management was a good fit. The leadership in all POs voiced interest in providing care management to patients within their PO as a means of improving patient outcomes, easing burden on providers of handling complex patients, and to meet health care standards and reimbursement policies such as patient-centred medical home recognition, accountable care, and meaningful use. Therefore, in this study overall organizational support was not found to be variant. Where organizational support emerged as an issue related more to resources and support for the care management program relative to the needs and goals of the program. The most common issue here was not having either enough care managers or enough care manager protected time to do care management for the number of patients needing it. So in well-normalized programs, there was a sense of “rationing” of the care manager. Because the program was being used so much more and there was a capacity constraint at the practice level with the practice-based care manager structure, the practices in these POs voiced more concern about lack of care manager capacity. Lack of resources was evident in other ways such as lack of space for patient visits or access to phone lines to make longer calls’ [51]. | |
Reflexive monitoring
Description: How do people work together to appraise interventions and their components? [11]. |
Systematisation [7] |
Description: How do people access information about the effects of interventions and their components? [40].
Example: Feedback was never provided to staff on the effect of the AKI e-alert “I haven’t had any feedback since the new version (of the AKI e-alert) went in actually(...) I don’t know whether there is a formal mechanism for that getting to anyone”’ [52]. |
Communal appraisal [7] |
Description: How do people collectively assess interventions and their components as worthwhile? [40].
Example: ‘The e-alert was rarely (if ever) discussed among clinicians, but participants often stated they felt that others would find it worthwhile. “The e-alert was rarely (if ever) discussed among clinicians, but participants often stated they felt that others would find it worthwhile. “Most people I'm sure would know it's a good idea having them. That's what I'd say to someone about these alerts”’ [52]. | |
Individual appraisal [7] |
Description: How do people individually assess interventions and their components as worthwhile? [40].
Example: ‘A key barrier which has not previously been identified concerned the ability of case managers to identify, and act on, emerging patient and carer needs; we identified examples of missed and unmet needs for all three case managers. One case manager explicitly attributed this to the timing of the intervention; a study of case management for people with early symptoms of dementia and their carers similarly found that case managers did not feel the intervention was needed at this point’ [53]. | |
Reconfiguration [7] |
Description: How do people modify their work in response to their appraisal of interventions and their components? [40].
Example: ‘Aligning IPC guidelines with local clinical context is an essential means to reduce the sense of dissonance and represents a critical step forward towards successful implementation. Some strategies described in the literature to promote alignment include: integration of IPC recommendations within other established programmes; and education and audit interventions acknowledging the positive and negative beliefs of staff on IPC practices’ [31]. |