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