Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2007 Jul 24:8:42.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-8-42.

Process evaluation for complex interventions in primary care: understanding trials using the normalization process model

Affiliations

Process evaluation for complex interventions in primary care: understanding trials using the normalization process model

Carl R May et al. BMC Fam Pract. .

Abstract

Background: The Normalization Process Model is a conceptual tool intended to assist in understanding the factors that affect implementation processes in clinical trials and other evaluations of complex interventions. It focuses on the ways that the implementation of complex interventions is shaped by problems of workability and integration.

Method: In this paper the model is applied to two different complex trials: (i) the delivery of problem solving therapies for psychosocial distress, and (ii) the delivery of nurse-led clinics for heart failure treatment in primary care.

Results: Application of the model shows how process evaluations need to focus on more than the immediate contexts in which trial outcomes are generated. Problems relating to intervention workability and integration also need to be understood. The model may be used effectively to explain the implementation process in trials of complex interventions.

Conclusion: The model invites evaluators to attend equally to considering how a complex intervention interacts with existing patterns of service organization, professional practice, and professional-patient interaction. The justification for this may be found in the abundance of reports of clinical effectiveness for interventions that have little hope of being implemented in real healthcare settings.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Hacker JS. Dismantling the health care state? Political institutions, public policies and the comparative politics of health reform. Brit J Pol Sci. 2004;34:693–724. doi: 10.1017/S0007123404000250. - DOI
    1. Tanenbaum SJ. Knowing and acting in medical research: the epistemological politics of outcomes research. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1994;19:27–44. - PubMed
    1. Lehoux P, Blume S. Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2000;25:1083–1120. doi: 10.1215/03616878-25-6-1083. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Medical Research Council . A framework for development and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. London: Medical Research Council; 2000. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Oakley A, Strange V, Bonell C, Allen E, Stephenson J. Health services research – Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. Brit Med J. 2006;332:413–416. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7538.413. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms