Cited by 770Health Policy Implementation ScienceClinical practice guidelines implementationEvaluation and Performance Assessment

Understanding the implementation of complex interventions in health care: the normalization process model

Open access
May, Carl, Finch, Tracy, Mair, Frances, Ballini, Luciana, Dowrick, Christopher, Eccles, Martin, Gask, Linda, MacFarlane, Anne +8 more·2007·BMC Health Services Research

Abstract

Background: The Normalization Process Model is a theoretical model that assists in explaining the processes by which complex interventions become routinely embedded in health care practice. It offers a framework for process evaluation and also for comparative studies of complex interventions. It focuses on the factors that promote or inhibit the routine embedding of complex interventions in health care practice. Methods: A formal theory structure is used to define the model, and its internal causal relations and mechanisms. The model is broken down to show that it is consistent and adequate in generating accurate description, systematic explanation, and the production of rational knowledge claims about the workability and integration of complex interventions. Results: The model explains the normalization of complex interventions by reference to four factors demonstrated to promote or inhibit the operationalization and embedding of complex interventions (interactional workability, relational integration, skill-set workability, and contextual integration). Conclusion: The model is consistent and adequate. Repeated calls for theoretically sound process evaluations in randomized controlled trials of complex interventions, and policy-makers who call for a proper understanding of implementation processes, emphasize the value of conceptual tools like the Normalization Process Model.

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 · 10.1186/1472-6963-7-148

Cites

26 of 26 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?

  • The development of NPT first involved the iterative development of a robust generic theory of implementation.

    “The development of NPT first involved the iterative development of a robust generic theory of implementation [5–9, 11, 12].”

    From Using Normalization Process Theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review (2018) · cites this paper as [6]

    The Background describes successive development of the Normalization Process Model from empirical studies into a robust applied theory. But the Conclusion explicitly says the model is not a general theory: its scope is the implementation of complex interventions in healthcare, so this paper does not support calling it a generic theory of implementation. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Normalization Process Theory (NPT) identifies, characterises and explains key mechanisms that promote and inhibit the implementation, embedding and integration of new health techniques, technologies and other complex interventions.

    “Normalization Process Theory (NPT) identifies, characterises and explains key mechanisms that promote and inhibit the implementation, embedding and integration of new health techniques, technologies and other complex interventions.”

    From Using Normalization Process Theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review (2018) · cites this paper as [6]

    The Background and Abstract Results sections say the Normalization Process Model identifies factors that promote or inhibit implementation and explains how complex interventions become embedded in health care practice. The cited paper calls this the Normalization Process Model, not Normalization Process Theory (NPT), and describes its scope as complex interventions in health care rather than the broader formulation in the claim. The copy provides no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • NPT has been built up from studies of practice in many different healthcare systems.

    “NPT is a theory of implementation that focuses on what people—both individuals and groups—do rather than what they believe or intend, and it has been built up from studies of practice in many different healthcare systems.”

    From Using Normalization Process Theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review (2018) · cites this paper as [6]

    The Background says the model was derived from empirical studies, supporting the claim that it was built up from studies of practice. It does not say those studies took place in many different healthcare systems, so that scope is unsupported by this paper. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Theories are conceptual toolkits that can be used flexibly to deal with practical problems.

    “we have argued that theories are conceptual toolkits that can be used flexibly to deal with practical problems.”

    From Using Normalization Process Theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review (2018) · cites this paper as [6]

    The Conclusion describes applied theories as tools for description, explanation and investigation, and presents the model as a practical tool. It also says such tools must be used within defined limits; it does not support an unqualified claim that theories can be used flexibly across practical problems. The indexed passages provide no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Designing specific interventions for different under-represented groups through a common framework may improve the subsequent uptake in services.

    “Designing specific interventions for different under-represented groups through a common framework may improve the subsequent uptake in services [14].”

    From Development and evaluation of culturally sensitive psychosocial interventions for under-served people in primary care (2014) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Background (page not provided) describes a common framework for identifying factors that promote or inhibit implementation and for assessing whether an intervention will become routine in health care practice. It does not address designing interventions for different under-represented groups or show that doing so improves service uptake. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Rogers EM The diffusion of innovation 1995 4 New York: Free Press
  2. Hechter M Horne C Hechter M, Horne C Theory is explanation Theories of social order 2003 Stanford CA: Stanford University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
May, C., Finch, T., Mair, F., Ballini, L., Dowrick, C., Eccles, M., Gask, L., MacFarlane, A., Murray, E., Rapley, T., Rogers, A., Treweek, S., Wallace, P., Anderson, G., Burns, J., & Heaven, B.
Affiliations
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
  • Agenzia Sanitaria e Sociale Regionale (IT)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway (IE)
  • The Royal Free Hospital (GB)
  • University of Dundee (GB)
Corresponding author
May, Carl
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Published
2007-09-19
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
148-148
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2122402281
Cited by
768
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 67 · 2020: 107 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 28
FWCI
23.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (acceptedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • BIBSYS Brage (BIBSYS (Norway)) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • European Commission
  • Economic and Social Research Council
  • Health Technology Assessment Programme
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 › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Keywords
complex interventions, intervention implementation, process evaluation, relational integration, contextual integration, health care practices, causal mechanisms
MeSH terms
Humans, Models, Theoretical, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine, Guideline Adherence

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