Skip to main content

Table 4 Røsstad et al. link constructs to data and compare sites [122]. (Reproduced from BMC Health Services Research, published under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) licence)

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

 

Municipalities

A

B

C

D

E

F

PaTH in use in full scalea

Elements of PaTH in usea

PaTH not in usea

Makes sense (coherenceb)

 Expecting PaTH to be useful

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

 Regular staff understood how to use PaTH

Mixed

Mixed

Mixed

Mixed

Mixed

Mixed

Commitment and engagement (cognitive participationb)

 Sustained leadership

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

 Practice in using checklists

Intensive

Intensive

Minimal

Minimal

Minimal

Minimal

 General attention to PaTH at workplace

Yes

Yes

No

Nurses only

No

No

Facilitating use of PaTH (collective actionb)

 Extra personnel resources

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

 Major competing priorities

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

 Usability in electronic health record

Good

Fair

Poor

Poor

Poor

Poor

 Working schedule facilitated for PaTH

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

 Checklists incorporated in daily routines

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Value of PaTH (reflexive monitoringb)

 Impact on collaboration with the hospital

Mixed

Mixed

No

No

No

No

 Impact on collaboration with GPs

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

 Impact on service quality

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

 Value for individual nurse/nursing assistant

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

 Valued as a management tool

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

  1. aAssessed 24 months (B–F) and 32 months (A) after introduction of PaTH in the municipalities
  2. bCore constructs of the Normalization Process Theory