Skip to main content

Table 2 Uncontrolled studies using NPT as their analytic framework

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

Study Country of origin Theory frame Implementation problem Evidence base cited to support intervention Use of NPT specified in protocol NPT study type Data collected Application of NPT to data Factors leading to intervention success or failure Differences between categories of participants Differences between settings
27. Aarts et al. [59] Netherlands NPM Infertility support (online) Systematic review [167] Process evaluation Qualitative Retrospective Yes Yes N/A
28. Agbakoba et al. [60,61,62] UK NPT Telecare/digital health in the community Systematic review [168] Yes Process evaluation Qualitative Prospective Yes Yes Yes
29. Alharbi et al. [63] Sweden NPT Person-centred care   Process evaluation Qualitative Retrospective Yes Yes N/A
30. Ahmed et al. [64] UK NPT Screening questionnaire (genetic conditions in primary care) Systematic review [169] Feasibility study Qualitative Retrospective Yes No No
31. Alverbratt et al. [65] Sweden NPT Patient assessment tool in psychiatry   Process evaluation Qualitative Prospective Yes Yes Yes
32. Ariens et al. [66] Netherlands NPT Teledermatology   Yes Process evaluation Quantitative (survey using eHit Toolkit [226]) Prospective Yes No No
33. Atkins et al. [67] South Africa NPM Supporting treatment adherence in tuberculosis Systematic review [170] Process evaluation Qualitative Retrospective Yes Yes No
34. Bamford et al. [68] UK NPT Nutrition guidelines FSA guideline [171] Yes Process evaluation Qualitative Prospective Yes Yes No
35. Basu et al. [69] UK NPT Improving motor outcome in infants after perinatal stroke    Feasibility study Qualitative Prospective Yes No N/A
36. Bayliss et al. [70] UK NPT Training for chronic fatigue management NICE guideline [172]   Feasibility study Qualitative Prospective Yes Yes No
37. Bee et al. [71] UK NPT Cognitive behavioural therapy by phone Systematic reviews [227, 228]   Feasibility study Qualitative Prospective Yes No No
38. Bocum et al. [72] Burkina Faso NPM Antenatal syphilis screening    Feasibility study Qualitative Retrospective Yes No Yes
39. Bouamrane and Mair [73] UK NPT Surgical assessment (online) Systematic review [168] Yes Process evaluation Qualitative Prospective Yes No N/A
40. Bouamrane and Mair [74] UK NPT Electronic referrals (online) Systematic review [168] Yes Process evaluation Qualitative Prospective Yes No N/A
41. Bouamrane and Mair [75] UK NPT Surgical assessment (online) Systematic review [173] Yes Process evaluation Qualitative Prospective Yes Yes N/A
42. Bridges et al. [76] UK NPT Compassionate nursing care Systematic reviews [76, 229] Yes Process evaluation Qualitative Prospective Yes No Yes
43. Chiang et al. [77] Australia NPT Risk assessment tools Systematic review [174] Feasibility study Qualitative Prospective Yes No No
44. Conn et al. [78] Canada NPT Improving recovery after colorectal surgery Meta-analysis [175] Process evaluation Qualitative Retrospective Yes Yes No
45. Desveaux et al. [79] Canada NPT Hospital accreditation Systematic review [230] Process evaluation Qualitative Retrospective Yes Yes yes
46. Dickinson et al. [80] UK NPT Cognitive stimulation for people with dementia    Process evaluation Qualitative Retrospective Yes Yes Yes
47. Dikomiitis et al. [81] UK NPT Decision support tool for cancer   Feasibility study Qualitative Prospective Yes No No
48. Drew et al. [82] UK ENPT Fracture prevention clinics NICE guidelines [176, 177] Process evaluation Qualitative Retrospective Yes Yes No
49. Dugdale et al. [83] UK NPT Substance misuse management (online)   Process evaluation Qualitative Prospective Yes Yes No
50. Ehrlich [84] Australia NPT Care coordination in long-term conditions   Yes Field study Qualitative Prospective N/A N/A N/A
51. Finch [85] UK NPM Telecare/telemedicine   Field study Qualitative Prospective Yes No No
52. Franx et al. [86] Netherlands NPT Collaborative care for depression NICE guideline [178] Yes Process evaluation Qualitative Retrospective Yes Yes No
53. French et al. [87, 88] UK NPT Stroke management using telecare Systematic review [179] Yes Process evaluation Qualitative Prospective Yes Yes No
54. Foss et al. [89] Norway NPT Social network mapping for chronic disease management Systematic review [231] Yes Process evaluation Qualitative Prospective Yes No No
55. Foster et al. [90] Australia NPT Diabetes management Systematic review [180] Feasibility study Qualitative Prospective Yes Yes No
56. Gould et al. [91] UK NPT Infection prevention and control   Process evaluation Qualitative Retrospective Yes Yes No
57. Green et al. [147] UK NPT Cancer risk assessment tool NICE guideline [181] Feasibility study Qualitative Retrospective Yes N/A N/A
58. Gunn et al. [92] Australia NPT Reorganisation of primary care mental health services Systematic review [155] Process evaluation Qualitative Retrospective Yes No Yes
59. Hall et al. [93] UK NPT Monitoring technologies in care homes for people with dementia Systematic review [232]   Process evaluation Qualitative Retrospective Yes Yes Yes
60. Hall et al. [94] UK NPT Supporting staff working with people with autism   Yes Process evaluation Qualitative Prospective Yes No No
61. Hazell et al. [95] UK NPT Guided self-help cognitive therapy NICE guideline [233] Yes Process evaluation Quantitative (survey) Prospective Yes Yes N/A
62. Henderson et al. [96] UK NPT Diagnostic decision support in primary care Systematic review [167, 182] Process evaluation Mixed Prospective Yes No N/A
63. Herbert et al. [97] UK NPT Enhanced recovery after surgery    Process evaluation Qualitative Prospective Yes Yes N/A
64. Hoberg et al. [98] USA NPM Group therapy model APA guideline [234] Feasibility study Qualitative Prospective Yes No No
65. Holtrop et al. [99] USA NPT (collective action constructs) Care management for chronic disease in primary care   Yes Process evaluation Qualitative Prospective Yes No Yes
66. Kanagasundaram et al. [100] UK NPT Diagnostic decision support (acute kidney injury) NICE guideline [183] Feasibility study Mixed Retrospective Yes Yes N/A
67. Kulnik et al. [101] UK NPT Inter-professional self-management support Systematic review [184] Process evaluation Mixed Prospective Yes Yes Yes
68. Johnson et al. [102] UK NPT Guideline implementation Overview of systematic reviews [235] Yes Process evaluation Quantitative (prospective cohort intervention) Prospective Yes Yes N/A
69. Jones, C. et al. [103] UK NPT Diagnostic point of care testing   Ethnographic case study Qualitative Prospective Yes Yes N/A
70. Jones, F. et al. [104] UK NPT Self-care training programme for stroke practitioners   Process evaluation Qualitative Retrospective Yes No No
71. Leggat et al. [105] Australia NPT Quality improvement in hospitals Systematic review [236] No Process evaluation Qualitative Retrospective Yes Yes Yes
72. Lhussier et al. [106] UK NPT Care planning in primary care   No Field study Qualitative Retrospective Yes Yes N/A
73. Ling et al. [107] UK NPT Integrated care policy   Process evaluation Qualitative Retrospective Yes Yes Yes
74. Lloyd et al. [108, 109] UK NPT Shared decision-making tools Systematic review [185] Yes Feasibility study Qualitative Retrospective Yes Yes Yes
75. Lowrie et al. [110] UK NPT Chronic heart failure management in the community NICE guideline [186] Feasibility study Qualitative Retrospective Yes Yes N/A
76. Martindale et al. [111] UK NPT Management of acute kidney injury in the community NICE guideline [183] Process evaluation Qualitative Prospective Yes Yes Yes
77. May et al. [112] UK NPT Telecare for chronic disease management in the community Systematic review [164] Yes Process evaluation Qualitative Prospective Yes Yes Yes
78. Morton and Wigley [113] UK NPT Nursing assessment tool for maternal/child health in the community   Yes Process evaluation Qualitative Prospective Yes No N/A
79. Murray et al. [114] UK NPT E-health systems Systematic review [187] Yes Process evaluation Qualitative Prospective Yes Yes Yes
80. Newton [115] Australia NPT Caseload midwifery models Systematic review [188] Yes Process evaluation Mixed Prospective Yes No N/A
81. Nordmark et al. [116] Norway NPT Discharge planning Systematic review [189] Feasibility study Qualitative Prospective Yes Yes Yes
82. O’Connell and Kaner [117] UK NPT Alcohol brief interventions in primary care   Field study Qualitative Retrospective Yes No N/A
83. Owens and Charles [118] UK NPT Text messaging in child and adolescent mental health services Systematic review [190] Yes Feasibility study Qualitative Prospective Yes No N/A
84. Polus et al. [119] Australia NPM Chiropractic services for indigenous Australians   Feasibility study Qualitative Prospective Yes Yes N/A
85. Pope et al. [120, 121] UK NPT Decision support tools for emergency services   Yes Process evaluation Qualitative Retrospective Yes Yes Yes
86. Røsstad et al. [122] Norway NPT Care pathways for older patients Systematic review [191] Process evaluation Qualitative Retrospective Yes Yes No
87. Sanders et al. [123] UK NPT Back pain management in primary care   Yes Process evaluation Qualitative Retrospective Yes No N/A
88. Scalia [124] USA NPT Option Grid decision support tools Systematic reviews [185, 237] Yes Field study Qualitative Prospective Yes No Yes
89. Scantlebury [125] UK NPT Maternity unit electronic health record Systematic review [192] Yes Process evaluation Qualitative Prospective Yes Yes N/A
90. Segrott et al. [126] UK ENPT Adolescent substance misuse programmes Systematic review [193] Yes Process evaluation Mixed Prospective Yes Yes Yes
91. Shemeili [127] Abu Dhabi NPT Medicines management in hospital care of older people   Yes Process evaluation Qualitative Prospective Yes No N/A
92. Shulver et al. [128] Australia NPT Telecare for older people   Yes Field study Qualitative Prospective Yes Yes Yes
93. Spangaro et al. [129] Australia NPM Screening for intimate partner violence Systematic review [238] Process evaluation Qualitative Retrospective Yes No N/A
94. Stevenson [130] UK NPT UK Clinical Practice Research datalink   Yes Process evaluation Qualitative Prospective Yes No No
95. Tarzia et al. [131] Australia NPT Decision-making for older adults with dementia   Field study Qualitative Retrospective Yes Yes N/A
96. Tazzyman et al. [148] UK NPT Revalidation of medical practitioners   Yes Process evaluation Qualitative Prospective (structured through the NoMAD Questionnaire) Yes Yes N/A
97. Temple-Smith et al. [132] Australia NPT Chlamydia testing in general practice   Yes Process evaluation Mixed Prospective Yes No No
98. Teunissen et al. [133,134,135,136] Austria, England, Ireland, Greece, Netherlands NPT Migrant health   Yes Process evaluation Qualitative Prospective Yes Yes Yes
99. Thomas et al. [137] Sweden ENPT Healthy lifestyle promotion in primary care   Process evaluation Mixed Retrospective Yes Yes Yes
100. Tierney et al. [138] Ireland NPT Interdisciplinary teams in primary care Systematic review [194,195,196] Yes Process evaluation Quantitative Prospective Yes Yes No
101. Toye et al. [139] Canada NPT Assessment instrument for homecare   Yes Feasibility study Qualitative Prospective Yes Yes Yes
102. Trietsch et al. [140] Netherlands NPT Quality improvement collaboratives Systematic review [197] Process evaluation Qualitative Retrospective Yes Yes Yes
103. Vest et al. [141] US NPT Clinical guideline implementation in chronic kidney disease ACP guideline [198] Process evaluation Qualitative Retrospective Yes N/A N/A
104. Volker et al. [142] Australia NPT Cardiovascular disease prevention   Process evaluation Qualitative Prospective Yes Yes Yes
105. Webster et al. [143] UK NPT Delivery of a psychosocial intervention for people with depression and long-term conditions   Yes Process evaluation Qualitative Prospective Yes No No
106. Walker et al. [144] Australia NPT Colorectal cancer risk prediction NICE guideline [199] Feasibility study Qualitative Retrospective Yes No No
107. Wilhelmsen et al. [145] Norway NPT Web-based cognitive behavioural therapy Systematic reviews [200, 201] Feasibility study Qualitative Retrospective Yes No No
108. Wilkes et al. [146] UK NPM Open access infertility clinics   Feasibility study Qualitative Retrospective Yes Yes No
  1. N/A not available