The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Understanding the implementation of complex interventions in health care: the normalization process model
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In the first iteration of the theory—the Normalization Process Model (NPM) [5, 6]—we identified the importance of collective action in routinely incorporating complex interventions into everyday practice.”
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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“We showed how collective action was organised around interactions between users and the properties of intervention components.”
From Using Normalization Process Theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review (2018) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“As we have pointed out [22, 23, 27], none of these takes place in a vacuum, and all of it is negotiated in diverse contexts.”
From Implementation, context and complexity (2016) · cites this paper as [22]
In the citing paper
“The precursor to NPT, normalization process model (NPM), originated from a large body of work on eHealth and was developed to explain the observation that many eHealth initiatives failed to embed into routine practice [112,113].”
From Web-Based Interventions for Behavior Change and Self-Management: Potential, Pitfalls, and Progress (2012) · cites this paper as [112]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review and Recommendations
GREENHALGH, T., ROBERT, G., MACFARLANE, F., BATE, P., & KYRIAKIDOU, O. (2004) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.0887-378x.2004.00325.x · Cited by 7,448
Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health
Campbell, M. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7262.694 · Cited by 3,474 · cited 1×
“Repeated calls for theoretically sound process evaluations in randomized controlled trials of complex interventions [2,4,25], and policy-makers who call for a proper understanding of implementation processes [26], give emphasis to the value of conceptual tools like the Normalization Process Model.”
Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach
Michie, S. (2005) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2004.011155 · Cited by 3,440
Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care
Campbell, N. C., Murray, E., Darbyshire, J., Emery, J., Farmer, A., Griffiths, F., Guthrie, B., Lester, H., Wilson, P., & Kinmonth, A. L. (2007) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39108.379965.be · Cited by 1,331
Self-citationProcess evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions
Oakley, A., Strange, V., Bonell, C., Allen, E., & Stephenson, J. (2006) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7538.413 · Cited by 1,247
Planning and Studying Improvement in Patient Care: The Use of Theoretical Perspectives
GROL, R. P. T. M., BOSCH, M. C., HULSCHER, M. E. J. L., ECCLES, M. P., & WENSING, M. (2007) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2007.00478.x · Cited by 943
Self-citationA Prospective and Retrospective Look at the Diffusion Model
Rogers, E. M. (2004) · Journal of Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10810730490271449 · Cited by 777
Shapiro, S. P. (2005) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.31.041304.122159 · Cited by 777
Sociological Rational Choice Theory
Hechter, M., & Satoshi Kanazawa, A. (1997) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.191 · Cited by 604
Rationalizing Medical Work: Decision-Support Techniques and Medical Practices
Zussman, R., & Berg, M. (1998) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2654540 · Cited by 461
A rational model for assessing and evaluating complex interventions in health care
May, C. (2006) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-6-86 · Cited by 447
Self-citationProfit and loss analysis for an intensive care unit (ICU) in Japan: a tool for strategic management
Cao, P., Toyabe, S., Abe, T., & Akazawa, K. (2006) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-6-1 · Cited by 320
Eccleston, C. (2003) · Archives of Disease in Childhood · doi:10.1136/adc.88.10.881 · Cited by 276
Giddens, A., & Turner, J. H. (1987) · Cited by 275
On theory and verification in sociology
Zetterberg, H. L. (1954) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 227
On Theory and Verification in Sociology.
Grigg, C. M., & Zetterberg, H. L. (1966) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2283072 · Cited by 203
May, C. R., Mair, F. S., Dowrick, C. F., & Finch, T. L. (2007) · BMC Family Practice · doi:10.1186/1471-2296-8-42 · Cited by 183
Self-citationLieberson, S., & Lynn, F. B. (2002) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141122 · Cited by 149
Health technology assessment in its local contexts: studies of telehealthcare
May, C., Mort, M., Williams, T., Mair, F., & Gask, L. (2003) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00419-7 · Cited by 147 · cited 1×
“Complex interventions relating to objects include trials of novel therapeutic agents and medical devices [19], and of decision-making tools and clinical guidelines [20].”
Self-citationOn Theory and Verification in Sociology.
Gross, L. Z., & Zetterberg, H. L. (1965) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2575638 · Cited by 138
1. The Poverty of Deductivism: A Constructive Realist Model of Sociological Explanation
Gorski, P. S. (2004) · Sociological Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.0081-1750.2004.00144.x · Cited by 128
Methodological issues in evaluating complex healthcare interventions
Blackwood, B. (2006) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03869.x · Cited by 114
Complex Interventions and the Chamber of Secrets: Understanding why they Work and Why they do not
Treweek, S. P. (2005) · Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · doi:10.1177/014107680509801218 · Cited by 25
Self-citationAp, K., Gately, C., & Rogers, A. (2004) · Cited by 21
Self-citationComplex interventions and the chamber of secrets: understanding why they work and why they do not
Treweek, S. P. (2005) · Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · doi:10.1258/jrsm.98.12.553 · Cited by 11
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- MRC: A framework for development and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. 2000, London: Medical Research Council
- Rogers EM: The diffusion of innovation. 1995, New York: Free Press, 4
- Hechter M, Horne C: Theory is explanation. Theories of social order. Edited by: Hechter M, Horne C. 2003, Stanford CA: Stanford University Press
- Kennedy A, Gately C, Rogers A: National evaluation of the expert patient programme: assessing the process of embedding the EPP in the NHS. 2003, Manchester: NPCRDC
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks
Nilsen, P. (2015) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0 · Cited by 4,447
Implementing, Embedding, and Integrating Practices: An Outline of Normalization Process Theory
May, C., & Finch, T. (2009) · Sociology · doi:10.1177/0038038509103208 · Cited by 2,115
Self-citationDevelopment of a theory of implementation and integration: Normalization Process Theory
May, C. R., Mair, F., Finch, T., MacFarlane, A., Dowrick, C., Treweek, S., Rapley, T., Ballini, L., Ong, B. N., Rogers, A., et al. (2009) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-29 · Cited by 1,409
“The theory is described in detail elsewhere [5-7].”
Self-citationA Holistic Framework to Improve the Uptake and Impact of eHealth Technologies
van Gemert-Pijnen, J. E., Nijland, N., van Limburg, M., Ossebaard, H. C., Kelders, S. M., Eysenbach, G., & Seydel, E. R. (2011) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1672 · Cited by 1,126
Pfadenhauer, L. M., Gerhardus, A., Mozygemba, K., Lysdahl, K. B., Booth, A., Hofmann, B., Wahlster, P., Polus, S., Burns, J., Brereton, L., et al. (2017) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0552-5 · Cited by 1,016
Self-citation
Metadata
- 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
- ORCID
- Venue
- BMC Health Services Research
- Published
- 2007-09-19
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 148-148
- ISSN
- 1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC2089069
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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 › Public Administration › 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
