Cited by 450Health Policy Implementation ScienceClinical practice guidelines implementationInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

A rational model for assessing and evaluating complex interventions in health care

Open access
May, Carl·2006·BMC Health Services Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Understanding how new clinical techniques, technologies and other complex interventions become normalized in practice is important to researchers, clinicians, health service managers and policy-makers. This paper presents a model of the normalization of complex interventions. METHODS: Between 1995 and 2005 multiple qualitative studies were undertaken. These examined: professional-patient relationships; changing patterns of care; the development, evaluation and implementation of telemedicine and related informatics systems; and the production and utilization of evidence for practice. Data from these studies were subjected to (i) formative re-analysis, leading to sets of analytic propositions; and to (ii) a summative analysis that aimed to build a robust conceptual model of the normalization of complex interventions in health care. RESULTS: A normalization process model that enables analysis of the conditions necessary to support the introduction of complex interventions is presented. The model is defined by four constructs: interactional workability; relational integration; skill set workability and contextual integration. This model can be used to understand the normalization potential of new techniques and technologies in healthcare settings CONCLUSION: The normalization process model has face validity in (i) assessing the potential for complex interventions to become routinely embedded in everyday clinical work, and (ii) evaluating the factors that promote or inhibit their success and failure in practice.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1472-6963-6-86

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A selection of approaches looked at whether the initiative benefits were perceived by staff and other stakeholders as valuable.

    “A selection of approaches took a wider perspective and looked at whether the initiative benefits were perceived by staff and other stakeholders as valuable [8, 30, 42, 51, 61-63].”
  • As an applied theoretical model, the NPM was restricted to a specific field of activity: the operationalization of complex healthcare interventions.

    “As an applied theoretical model, the NPM was restricted to a specific field of activity: the operationalization of complex healthcare interventions [7].”
  • By the end of 2006, the NPM in its published form was sufficient as a set of conceptual tools to analyse specific processes, and it has been successfully applied to this purpose.

    “By the end of 2006, the NPM in its published form [7] was sufficient as a set of conceptual tools to analyse specific processes, and it has been successfully applied to this purpose [32-36].”
  • A complex intervention is disposed to normalization if it confers an interactional advantage in flexibly accomplishing congruence and disposal.

    “1. A complex intervention is disposed to normalization if it confers an interactional advantage in flexibly accomplishing congruence and disposal;”
  • A complex intervention is disposed to normalization if it confers an advantage on an organization in flexibly executing and realizing work.

    “4. A complex intervention is disposed to normalization if it confers an advantage on an organization in flexibly executing and realizing work.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 90 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Rogers EM: The diffusion of innovation. 4th edition. New York: Free Press; 1995.
  2. Chew-Graham CA, May C: The challenge of the back pain con- sultation. Fam Pract 1998, 16:46-50.
  3. Rogers A, May C, Oliver D: Experiencing depression, experienc- ing the depressed: patients and doctors' accounts. J Mental Hlth 2001, 10(3):317-334.
  4. Dixon C: A multi-method evaluation of a training interven- tion for General Practitioners in the assessment and man- agement of depression. In PhD Thesis University of Manchester; 2000.
  5. Chapple A: Menorrhagia: General Practitioners' and womens' perceptions of this condition and its treatment. In PhD Thesis University of Manchester; 1997.
  6. Chapple A, Ling M, May C: Menorrhagia: women's need for equity in National Health Service treatment. Reproduct Hlth Matters 1997, 9:132-137.
  7. May C, Rapley T, Kaner EFS: Clinical reasoning, clinical trials, and risky drinkers in primary care: a qualitative study of Brit- ish general practitioners. Addict Theory Res 2006 in press.
  8. Fairhurst K: How do general practitioners experience satisfac- tion with their consultations. In PhD Thesis University of Edin- burgh; 2003.
  9. Cocksedge S: Listening as work: a qualitative investigation into general practitioners' perceptions. In MD Thesis University of Manchester; 2003.
  10. Iles V, Sutherland K: Review of existing research evidence on change management and quality improvement. London: National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organ- ization Research and Development; 2001.
  11. Preston D: Telemedicine in the NHS. British Association of Der- matologists, Symposium on Teledermatology, Royal College of Physi- cians of London; 2001.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
May, C.
Affiliations
Newcastle University (GB)
Corresponding author
May, Carl
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Published
2006-12
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
86-86
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1487109350
Cited by
447
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 21
FWCI
32.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
  • University of Toronto
  • Economic and Social Research Council (RES-000-27-0084)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Keywords
complex interventions, telemedicine, professional-patient relationship, evidence-based practice, relational integration, contextual integration
MeSH terms
Chronic Disease, Depression, Diffusion of Innovation, United Kingdom, Humans, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Sociology, Medical, Systems Analysis, Technology Assessment, Biomedical, Reproducibility of Results, Low Back Pain, Models, Organizational, Telemedicine, Evidence-Based Medicine, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review