| Title |
A qualitative systematic review of studies using the normalization process theory to research implementation processes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-9-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rachel McEvoy, Luciana Ballini, Susanna Maltoni, Catherine A O’Donnell, Frances S Mair, Anne MacFarlane |
| Abstract |
There is a well-recognized need for greater use of theory to address research translational gaps. Normalization Process Theory (NPT) provides a set of sociological tools to understand and explain the social processes through which new or modified practices of thinking, enacting, and organizing work are implemented, embedded, and integrated in healthcare and other organizational settings. This review of NPT offers readers the opportunity to observe how, and in what areas, a particular theoretical approach to implementation is being used. In this article we review the literature on NPT in order to understand what interventions NPT is being used to analyze, how NPT is being operationalized, and the reported benefits, if any, of using NPT. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 70 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 28 | 40% |
| Australia | 5 | 7% |
| Canada | 3 | 4% |
| Denmark | 1 | 1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 1% |
| Ireland | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 30 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 30 | 43% |
| Scientists | 30 | 43% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 528 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Ghana | 1 | <1% |
| Kenya | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 2 | <1% |
| Unknown | 514 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 103 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 99 | 19% |
| Researcher | 86 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 28 | 5% |
| Other | 21 | 4% |
| Other | 76 | 14% |
| Unknown | 115 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 89 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 85 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 67 | 13% |
| Psychology | 43 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 36 | 7% |
| Other | 66 | 13% |
| Unknown | 142 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 10 June 2023.
All research outputs
#970,110
of 25,870,940 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#119
of 1,823 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,144
of 321,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#6
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,870,940 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,823 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 321,318 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.