Cited by 1,478Health Policy Implementation ScienceClinical practice guidelines implementationDelphi Technique in Research

Normalisation process theory: a framework for developing, evaluating and implementing complex interventions

Open access
Murray, Elizabeth, Treweek, Shaun, Pope, Catherine, MacFarlane, Anne, Ballini, Luciana, Dowrick, Christopher, Finch, Tracy, Kennedy, Anne +6 more·2010·BMC Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The past decade has seen considerable interest in the development and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. Such interventions can only have a significant impact on health and health care if they are shown to be effective when tested, are capable of being widely implemented and can be normalised into routine practice. To date, there is still a problematic gap between research and implementation. The Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) addresses the factors needed for successful implementation and integration of interventions into routine work (normalisation). DISCUSSION: In this paper, we suggest that the NPT can act as a sensitising tool, enabling researchers to think through issues of implementation while designing a complex intervention and its evaluation. The need to ensure trial procedures that are feasible and compatible with clinical practice is not limited to trials of complex interventions, and NPT may improve trial design by highlighting potential problems with recruitment or data collection, as well as ensuring the intervention has good implementation potential. SUMMARY: The NPT is a new theory which offers trialists a consistent framework that can be used to describe, assess and enhance implementation potential. We encourage trialists to consider using it in their next trial.

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 · 10.1186/1741-7015-8-63

Cites

35 of 35 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?

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: 1

  1. May C, Finch T: Implementation, embedding, and integration: an outline of Normalization Process Theory. Sociology 2009, 43:535-554.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Murray, E., Treweek, S., Pope, C., MacFarlane, A., Ballini, L., Dowrick, C., Finch, T., Kennedy, A., Mair, F., O'Donnell, C., Ong, B. N., Rapley, T., Rogers, A., & May, C.
Affiliations
  • The Royal Free Hospital (GB)
  • University of Dundee (GB)
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • National University of Ireland (IE)
  • Agenzia Sanitaria e Sociale Regionale (IT)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
  • Keele University (GB)
Corresponding author
Murray, Elizabeth
Venue
BMC Medicine
Published
2010-10-20
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
63-63
ISSN
1741-7015 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2144185507
Cited by
1,478
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 141 · 2025: 155 · 2024: 205 · 2023: 143 · 2022: 128 · 2021: 147 · 2020: 188 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 68 · 2017: 62 · 2016: 61 · 2015: 39 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 20
FWCI
26.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) (acceptedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • ARAN (University of Galway Research Repository) (Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Limerick Institutional Repository (University of Limerick) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Lenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-PG-0407-10386)
  • NIHR School for Primary Care Research
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 › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
Normalisation Process Theory, complex interventions, implementation potential, research-practice gap, trial design, implementation research, intervention development, healthcare implementation
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Planning Techniques, Research Design, Evidence-Based Medicine

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