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
. 2018 Jun 7;13(1):80.
doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0758-1.

Using Normalization Process Theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review

Affiliations

Using Normalization Process Theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review

Carl R May et al. Implement Sci. .

Abstract

Background: Normalization Process Theory (NPT) identifies, characterises and explains key mechanisms that promote and inhibit the implementation, embedding and integration of new health techniques, technologies and other complex interventions. A large body of literature that employs NPT to inform feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions has now emerged. The aims of this review were to review this literature; to identify and characterise the uses and limits of NPT in research on the implementation and integration of healthcare interventions; and to explore NPT's contribution to understanding the dynamics of these processes.

Methods: A qualitative systematic review was conducted. We searched Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar for articles with empirical data in peer-reviewed journals that cited either key papers presenting and developing NPT, or the NPT Online Toolkit ( www.normalizationprocess.org ). We included in the review only articles that used NPT as the primary approach to collection, analysis or reporting of data in studies of the implementation of healthcare techniques, technologies or other interventions. A structured data extraction instrument was used, and data were analysed qualitatively.

Results: Searches revealed 3322 citations. We show that after eliminating 2337 duplicates and broken or junk URLs, 985 were screened as titles and abstracts. Of these, 101 were excluded because they did not fit the inclusion criteria for the review. This left 884 articles for full-text screening. Of these, 754 did not fit the inclusion criteria for the review. This left 130 papers presenting results from 108 identifiable studies to be included in the review. NPT appears to provide researchers and practitioners with a conceptual vocabulary for rigorous studies of implementation processes. It identifies, characterises and explains empirically identifiable mechanisms that motivate and shape implementation processes. Taken together, these mean that analyses using NPT can effectively assist in the explanation of the success or failure of specific implementation projects. Ten percent of papers included critiques of some aspect of NPT, with those that did mainly focusing on its terminology. However, two studies critiqued NPT emphasis on agency, and one study critiqued NPT for its normative focus.

Conclusions: This review demonstrates that researchers found NPT useful and applied it across a wide range of interventions. It has been effectively used to aid intervention development and implementation planning as well as evaluating and understanding implementation processes themselves. In particular, NPT appears to have offered a valuable set of conceptual tools to aid understanding of implementation as a dynamic process.

Keywords: Complex interventions; Implementation research; Normalization Process Theory; Process evaluation; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Authors’ information

During the period in which this work was undertaken, CRM was a member of staff in the Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, UK. With Prof Alison Richardson, he jointly led the Patient Experience and Organisational Behaviour Research Programme of NIHR CLARHC Wessex.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Competing interests

CRM and TLF are the lead architects of NPT. FSM, EM and TR all played leading roles in the development and empirical application of NPT.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flowchart
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Interactions between NPT mechanisms: sequential operation over time (e.g. Alharbi et al. [63])
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Interactions between NPT mechanisms: obligatory starting point (e.g. Finch [85])
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Interactions between NPM mechanisms: relational integration as an obligatory point of passage (Holtrop et al. [99])
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Interactions between NPT mechanisms: constant interaction between mechanisms (e.g. Hooker et al. [–41])

References

    1. Davidoff F, Dixon-Woods M, Leviton L, Michie S. Demystifying theory and its use in improvement. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015; 10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003627. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tabak RG, Khoong EC, Chambers DA, Brownson RC. Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43(3):337–350. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05.024. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10:53. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Skolarus TA, Lehmann T, Tabak RG, Harris J, Lecy J, Sales AE. Assessing citation networks for dissemination and implementation research frameworks. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):97. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0628-2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. May C. A rational model for assessing and evaluating complex interventions in health care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6(86):1–11. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types