Cited by 75Health Policy Implementation SciencePsychiatric care and mental health servicesClinical practice guidelines implementation

What work has to be done to implement collaborative care for depression? Process evaluation of a trial utilizing the Normalization Process Model

Open access
Gask, Linda, Bower, Peter, Lovell, Karina, Escott, Diane, Archer, Janine, Gilbody, Simon, Lankshear, Annette J, Simpson, Angela E +1 more·2010·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is a considerable evidence base for 'collaborative care' as a method to improve quality of care for depression, but an acknowledged gap between efficacy and implementation. This study utilises the Normalisation Process Model (NPM) to inform the process of implementation of collaborative care in both a future full-scale trial, and the wider health economy. METHODS: Application of the NPM to qualitative data collected in both focus groups and one-to-one interviews before and after an exploratory randomised controlled trial of a collaborative model of care for depression. RESULTS: Findings are presented as they relate to the four factors of the NPM (interactional workability, relational integration, skill-set workability, and contextual integration) and a number of necessary tasks are identified. Using the model, it was possible to observe that predictions about necessary work to implement collaborative care that could be made from analysis of the pre-trial data relating to the four different factors of the NPM were indeed borne out in the post-trial data. However, additional insights were gained from the post-trial interview participants who, unlike those interviewed before the trial, had direct experience of a novel intervention. The professional freedom enjoyed by more senior mental health workers may work both for and against normalisation of collaborative care as those who wish to adopt new ways of working have the freedom to change their practice but are not obliged to do so. CONCLUSIONS: The NPM provides a useful structure for both guiding and analysing the process by which an intervention is optimized for testing in a larger scale trial or for subsequent full-scale implementation.

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 · 10.1186/1748-5908-5-15

Cites

27 of 27 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. Iles V Sutherland K Organisational Change: a review for health care managers, professionals and researchers 2001 National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Services Delivery and Organisation R &D: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gask, L., Bower, P., Lovell, K., Escott, D., Archer, J., Gilbody, S., Lankshear, A. J., Simpson, A. E., & Richards, D. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • University of York (GB)
  • Cardiff University (GB)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
Corresponding author
Gask, Linda
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2010-02-10
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
15-15
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2135177788
Cited by
75
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
12.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
collaborative care, depression, implementation process, process evaluation, relational integration, contextual integration, mental health services, implementation barriers and facilitators, professional autonomy

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