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

May, Carl R.; Cummings, Amanda; Girling, Melissa; Bracher, Mike; Mair, Frances S.; May, Christine M.; Murray, Elizabeth; Myall, Michelle; Rapley, Tim; Finch, Tracy

doi:10.1186/s13012-018-0758-1

Implementation Science

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

N/A not available

Back to article page

ISSN: 1748-5908

Contact us

Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
General enquiries: info@biomedcentral.com