↓ Skip to main content

Learning from doing: the case for combining normalisation process theory and participatory learning and action research methodology for primary healthcare implementation research

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
Title
Learning from doing: the case for combining normalisation process theory and participatory learning and action research methodology for primary healthcare implementation research
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1587-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tomas de Brún, Mary O’Reilly-de Brún, Catherine A. O’Donnell, Anne MacFarlane

Abstract

The implementation of research findings is not a straightforward matter. There are substantive and recognised gaps in the process of translating research findings into practice and policy. In order to overcome some of these translational difficulties, a number of strategies have been proposed for researchers. These include greater use of theoretical approaches in research focused on implementation, and use of a wider range of research methods appropriate to policy questions and the wider social context in which they are placed. However, questions remain about how to combine theory and method in implementation research. In this paper, we respond to these proposals. Focussing on a contemporary social theory, Normalisation Process Theory, and a participatory research methodology, Participatory Learning and Action, we discuss the potential of their combined use for implementation research. We note ways in which Normalisation Process Theory and Participatory Learning and Action are congruent and may therefore be used as heuristic devices to explore, better understand and support implementation. We also provide examples of their use in our own research programme about community involvement in primary healthcare. Normalisation Process Theory alone has, to date, offered useful explanations for the success or otherwise of implementation projects post-implementation. We argue that Normalisation Process Theory can also be used to prospectively support implementation journeys. Furthermore, Normalisation Process Theory and Participatory Learning and Action can be used together so that interventions to support implementation work are devised and enacted with the expertise of key stakeholders. We propose that the specific combination of this theory and methodology possesses the potential, because of their combined heuristic force, to offer a more effective means of supporting implementation projects than either one might do on its own, and of providing deeper understandings of implementation contexts, rather than merely describing change.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 67 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 16%
Researcher 9 13%
Unspecified 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Other 20 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 24%
Social Sciences 13 19%
Unspecified 13 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 9%
Other 13 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 September 2016.
All research outputs
#1,181,864
of 11,449,959 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#495
of 3,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,322
of 263,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#30
of 214 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,449,959 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,664 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,203 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 214 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.