Cited by 159Health Policy Implementation ScienceElectronic Health Records SystemsInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

Arduous implementation: Does the Normalisation Process Model explain why it's so difficult to embed decision support technologies for patients in routine clinical practice

Open access
Elwyn, Glyn, Légaré, France, Weijden, Trudy van der, Edwards, Adrian, May, Carl·2008·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Decision support technologies (DSTs, also known as decision aids) help patients and professionals take part in collaborative decision-making processes. Trials have shown favorable impacts on patient knowledge, satisfaction, decisional conflict and confidence. However, they have not become routinely embedded in health care settings. Few studies have approached this issue using a theoretical framework. We explained problems of implementing DSTs using the Normalization Process Model, a conceptual model that focuses attention on how complex interventions become routinely embedded in practice. METHODS: The Normalization Process Model was used as the basis of conceptual analysis of the outcomes of previous primary research and reviews. Using a virtual working environment we applied the model and its main concepts to examine: the 'workability' of DSTs in professional-patient interactions; how DSTs affect knowledge relations between their users; how DSTs impact on users' skills and performance; and the impact of DSTs on the allocation of organizational resources. RESULTS: A conceptual analysis using the Normalization Process Model provided insight on implementation problems for DSTs in routine settings. Current research focuses mainly on the interactional workability of these technologies, but factors related to divisions of labor and health care, and the organizational contexts in which DSTs are used, are poorly described and understood. CONCLUSION: The model successfully provided a framework for helping to identify factors that promote and inhibit the implementation of DSTs in healthcare and gave us insights into factors influencing the introduction of new technologies into contexts where negotiations are characterized by asymmetries of power and knowledge. Future research and development on the deployment of DSTs needs to take a more holistic approach and give emphasis to the structural conditions and social norms in which these technologies are enacted.

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 · 10.1186/1748-5908-3-57

Cites

64 of 64 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: 4

  1. Rogers EM The diffusion of innovation 1995 New York: Free Press
  2. Greenhalgh T Robert G Macfarlane F Bate P Kyriakidou O Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations Milbank Quarterly 2004 82 581 629 15595944 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x PMC2690184 · DOI · Paper page
  3. May C Finch T Normalizing Health Technologies London, Palgrave
  4. Gravel K Legare F Graham I Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: a systematic review of health professionals' perceptions Implementation Science 2006 1 16 16899124 10.1186/1748-5908-1-16 PMC1586024 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Elwyn, G., Légaré, F., Weijden, T. V. D., Edwards, A., & May, C.
Affiliations
  • Cardiff University (GB)
  • Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec (CA)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
Corresponding author
Elwyn, Glyn
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2008-12
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
57-57
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2013687146
Cited by
159
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 15
FWCI
14.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • 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)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Keywords
decision support technology, decision aids, implementation barriers, routine clinical practice, professional-patient interaction, workability, organizational resources, power imbalance, social norms, collaborative decision-making

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