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.
Using a framework analysis approach, we conducted a qualitative systematic review of peer-reviewed literature using NPT. We searched 12 electronic databases and all citations linked to six key NPT development papers. Grey literature/unpublished studies were not sought. Limitations of English language, healthcare setting and year of publication 2006 to June 2012 were set.
Twenty-nine articles met the inclusion criteria; in the main, NPT is being applied to qualitatively analyze a diverse range of complex interventions, many beyond its original field of e-health and telehealth. The NPT constructs have high stability across settings and, notwithstanding challenges in applying NPT in terms of managing overlaps between constructs, there is evidence that it is a beneficial heuristic device to explain and guide implementation processes.
NPT offers a generalizable framework that can be applied across contexts with opportunities for incremental knowledge gain over time and an explicit framework for analysis, which can explain and potentially shape implementation processes. This is the first review of NPT in use and it generates an impetus for further and extended use of NPT. We recommend that in future NPT research, authors should explicate their rationale for choosing NPT as their theoretical framework and, where possible, involve multiple stakeholders including service users to enable analysis of implementation from a range of perspectives.
Full text
Available for:
IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
Normalization Process Theory (NPT) identifies, characterises and explains key mechanisms that promote and inhibit the implementation, embedding and integration of new health techniques, technologies ...and other complex interventions. A large body of literature that employs NPT to inform feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions has now emerged. The aims of this review were to review this literature; to identify and characterise the uses and limits of NPT in research on the implementation and integration of healthcare interventions; and to explore NPT's contribution to understanding the dynamics of these processes.
A qualitative systematic review was conducted. We searched Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar for articles with empirical data in peer-reviewed journals that cited either key papers presenting and developing NPT, or the NPT Online Toolkit ( www.normalizationprocess.org ). We included in the review only articles that used NPT as the primary approach to collection, analysis or reporting of data in studies of the implementation of healthcare techniques, technologies or other interventions. A structured data extraction instrument was used, and data were analysed qualitatively.
Searches revealed 3322 citations. We show that after eliminating 2337 duplicates and broken or junk URLs, 985 were screened as titles and abstracts. Of these, 101 were excluded because they did not fit the inclusion criteria for the review. This left 884 articles for full-text screening. Of these, 754 did not fit the inclusion criteria for the review. This left 130 papers presenting results from 108 identifiable studies to be included in the review. NPT appears to provide researchers and practitioners with a conceptual vocabulary for rigorous studies of implementation processes. It identifies, characterises and explains empirically identifiable mechanisms that motivate and shape implementation processes. Taken together, these mean that analyses using NPT can effectively assist in the explanation of the success or failure of specific implementation projects. Ten percent of papers included critiques of some aspect of NPT, with those that did mainly focusing on its terminology. However, two studies critiqued NPT emphasis on agency, and one study critiqued NPT for its normative focus.
This review demonstrates that researchers found NPT useful and applied it across a wide range of interventions. It has been effectively used to aid intervention development and implementation planning as well as evaluating and understanding implementation processes themselves. In particular, NPT appears to have offered a valuable set of conceptual tools to aid understanding of implementation as a dynamic process.
Full text
Available for:
IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
The burden of treatment for many people with complex, chronic, comorbidities reduces their capacity to collaborate in their care. Carl May, Victor Montori, and Frances Mair argue that to be ...effective, care must be less disruptive
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, CMK, NMLJ, NUK, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
Understanding of the role of ethnicity and socioeconomic position in the risk of developing SARS-CoV-2 infection is limited. We investigated this in the UK Biobank study.
The UK Biobank study ...recruited 40-70-year-olds in 2006-2010 from the general population, collecting information about self-defined ethnicity and socioeconomic variables (including area-level socioeconomic deprivation and educational attainment). SARS-CoV-2 test results from Public Health England were linked to baseline UK Biobank data. Poisson regression with robust standard errors was used to assess risk ratios (RRs) between the exposures and dichotomous variables for being tested, having a positive test and testing positive in hospital. We also investigated whether ethnicity and socioeconomic position were associated with having a positive test amongst those tested. We adjusted for covariates including age, sex, social variables (including healthcare work and household size), behavioural risk factors and baseline health.
Amongst 392,116 participants in England, 2658 had been tested for SARS-CoV-2 and 948 tested positive (726 in hospital) between 16 March and 3 May 2020. Black and south Asian groups were more likely to test positive (RR 3.35 (95% CI 2.48-4.53) and RR 2.42 (95% CI 1.75-3.36) respectively), with Pakistani ethnicity at highest risk within the south Asian group (RR 3.24 (95% CI 1.73-6.07)). These ethnic groups were more likely to be hospital cases compared to the white British. Adjustment for baseline health and behavioural risk factors led to little change, with only modest attenuation when accounting for socioeconomic variables. Socioeconomic deprivation and having no qualifications were consistently associated with a higher risk of confirmed infection (RR 2.19 for most deprived quartile vs least (95% CI 1.80-2.66) and RR 2.00 for no qualifications vs degree (95% CI 1.66-2.42)).
Some minority ethnic groups have a higher risk of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in the UK Biobank study, which was not accounted for by differences in socioeconomic conditions, baseline self-reported health or behavioural risk factors. An urgent response to addressing these elevated risks is required.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Aims
To examine the accuracy of diagnostic responses and types of information provided on online health forums.
Design
Qualitative descriptive study.
Methods
This paper reports the findings of a ...thematic analysis of peer responses to posts included on heart failure online health forums, to understand the quality and types of information provided. Responses posted between March 2016 and March 2019 were screened, collected and analysed thematically using Braun & Clarke. Themes were conceptually underpinned by Normalization Process Theory. Responses were assessed for quality against the NICE and SIGN guidelines to determine whether they were evidence based or not.
Results
The total number of responses collected for analysis was 639. Five main themes were identified: diagnostic, experiential, informational, peer relations and relationships with healthcare professionals. Out of 298 diagnostic responses, 5% were guideline evidence‐based and 6% had information that were partly evidence‐based. Non‐evidence based and potentially dangerous responses were 10%. Experiential responses were 10%; 23% included advice that was not supported with any clinical evidence; and 46% signposted users to other online references/healthcare professionals.
Conclusion
Online health communication largely focuses on provision of experiential responses to assist those in need of pre‐ or post‐diagnosis advice and support. However, there is evidence of inaccurate information provision which suggests the use of a moderator would be beneficial.
Impact
This study suggests heart failure online health forums are a source of support, however, there are potential risks. Increasing nurses and other health care professional's awareness of online health forums will be important. Additional training is needed to help them learn more about patient's use of online health forums, to gain a better understanding about the types of information sought, and how best to address such knowledge deficits. Healthcare systems must ensure sufficient time and resources are available to meet information needs for people with heart failure.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK, VSZLJ
It is now well recognised that the risk of severe COVID-19 increases with some long-term conditions (LTCs). However, prior research primarily focuses on individual LTCs and there is a lack of data on ...the influence of multimorbidity (≥2 LTCs) on the risk of COVID-19. Given the high prevalence of multimorbidity, more detailed understanding of the associations with multimorbidity and COVID-19 would improve risk stratification and help protect those most vulnerable to severe COVID-19. Here we examine the relationships between multimorbidity, polypharmacy (a proxy of multimorbidity), and COVID-19; and how these differ by sociodemographic, lifestyle, and physiological prognostic factors.
We studied data from UK Biobank (428,199 participants; aged 37-73; recruited 2006-2010) on self-reported LTCs, medications, sociodemographic, lifestyle, and physiological measures which were linked to COVID-19 test data. Poisson regression models examined risk of COVID-19 by multimorbidity/polypharmacy and effect modification by COVID-19 prognostic factors (age/sex/ethnicity/socioeconomic status/smoking/physical activity/BMI/systolic blood pressure/renal function). 4,498 (1.05%) participants were tested; 1,324 (0.31%) tested positive for COVID-19. Compared with no LTCs, relative risk (RR) of COVID-19 in those with 1 LTC was no higher (RR 1.12 (CI 0.96-1.30)), whereas those with ≥2 LTCs had 48% higher risk; RR 1.48 (1.28-1.71). Compared with no cardiometabolic LTCs, having 1 and ≥2 cardiometabolic LTCs had a higher risk of COVID-19; RR 1.28 (1.12-1.46) and 1.77 (1.46-2.15), respectively. Polypharmacy was associated with a dose response higher risk of COVID-19. All prognostic factors were associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 infection in multimorbidity; being non-white, most socioeconomically deprived, BMI ≥40 kg/m2, and reduced renal function were associated with the highest risk of COVID-19 infection: RR 2.81 (2.09-3.78); 2.79 (2.00-3.90); 2.66 (1.88-3.76); 2.13 (1.46-3.12), respectively. No multiplicative interaction between multimorbidity and prognostic factors was identified. Important limitations include the low proportion of UK Biobank participants with COVID-19 test data (1.05%) and UK Biobank participants being more affluent, healthier and less ethnically diverse than the general population.
Increasing multimorbidity, especially cardiometabolic multimorbidity, and polypharmacy are associated with a higher risk of developing COVID-19. Those with multimorbidity and additional factors, such as non-white ethnicity, are at heightened risk of COVID-19.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Cohorts such as UK Biobank are increasingly used to study multimorbidity; however, there are concerns that lack of representativeness may lead to biased results. This study aims to compare ...associations between multimorbidity and adverse health outcomes in UK Biobank and a nationally representative sample.
These are observational analyses of cohorts identified from linked routine healthcare data from UK Biobank participants (n = 211,597 from England, Scotland, and Wales with linked primary care data, age 40 to 70, mean age 56.5 years, 54.6% women, baseline assessment 2006 to 2010) and from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank (n = 852,055 from Wales, age 40 to 70, mean age 54.2, 50.0% women, baseline January 2011). Multimorbidity (n = 40 long-term conditions LTCs) was identified from primary care Read codes and quantified using a simple count and a weighted score. Individual LTCs and LTC combinations were also assessed. Associations with all-cause mortality, unscheduled hospitalisation, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) were assessed using Weibull or negative binomial models adjusted for age, sex, and socioeconomic status, over 7.5 years follow-up for both datasets. Multimorbidity was less common in UK Biobank than SAIL (26.9% and 33.0% with ≥2 LTCs in UK Biobank and SAIL, respectively). This difference was attenuated, but persisted, after standardising by age, sex, and socioeconomic status. The association between increasing multimorbidity count and mortality, hospitalisation, and MACE was similar between both datasets at LTC counts of ≤3; however, above this level, UK Biobank underestimated the risk associated with multimorbidity (e.g., mortality hazard ratio for 2 LTCs 1.62 (95% confidence interval 1.57 to 1.68) in SAIL and 1.51 (1.43 to 1.59) in UK Biobank, hazard ratio for 5 LTCs was 3.46 (3.31 to 3.61) in SAIL and 2.88 (2.63 to 3.15) in UK Biobank). Absolute risk of mortality, hospitalisation, and MACE, at all levels of multimorbidity, was lower in UK Biobank than SAIL (adjusting for age, sex, and socioeconomic status). Both cohorts produced similar hazard ratios for some LTCs (e.g., hypertension and coronary heart disease), but UK Biobank underestimated the risk for others (e.g., alcohol-related disorders or mental health conditions). Hazard ratios for some LTC combinations were similar between the cohorts (e.g., cardiovascular conditions); however, UK Biobank underestimated the risk for combinations including other conditions (e.g., mental health conditions). The main limitations are that SAIL databank represents only part of the UK (Wales only) and that in both cohorts we lacked data on severity of the LTCs included.
In this study, we observed that UK Biobank accurately estimates relative risk of mortality, unscheduled hospitalisation, and MACE associated with LTC counts ≤3. However, for counts ≥4, and for some LTC combinations, estimates of magnitude of association from UK Biobank are likely to be conservative. Researchers should be mindful of these limitations of UK Biobank when conducting and interpreting analyses of multimorbidity. Nonetheless, the richness of data available in UK Biobank does offers opportunities to better understand multimorbidity, particularly where complementary data sources less susceptible to selection bias can be used to inform and qualify analyses of UK Biobank.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Frailty is associated with older age and multimorbidity (two or more long-term conditions); however, little is known about its prevalence or effects on mortality in younger populations. This paper ...aims to examine the association between frailty, multimorbidity, specific long-term conditions, and mortality in a middle-aged and older aged population.
Data were sourced from the UK Biobank. Frailty phenotype was based on five criteria (weight loss, exhaustion, grip strength, low physical activity, slow walking pace). Participants were deemed frail if they met at least three criteria, pre-frail if they fulfilled one or two criteria, and not frail if no criteria were met. Sociodemographic characteristics and long-term conditions were examined. The outcome was all-cause mortality, which was measured at a median of 7 years follow-up. Multinomial logistic regression compared sociodemographic characteristics and long-term conditions of frail or pre-frail participants with non-frail participants. Cox proportional hazards models examined associations between frailty or pre-frailty and mortality. Results were stratified by age group (37–45, 45–55, 55–65, 65–73 years) and sex, and were adjusted for multimorbidity count, socioeconomic status, body-mass index, smoking status, and alcohol use.
493 737 participants aged 37–73 years were included in the study, of whom 16 538 (3%) were considered frail, 185 360 (38%) pre-frail, and 291 839 (59%) not frail. Frailty was significantly associated with multimorbidity (prevalence 18% 4435/25 338 in those with four or more long-term conditions; odds ratio OR 27·1, 95% CI 25·3–29·1) socioeconomic deprivation, smoking, obesity, and infrequent alcohol consumption. The top five long-term conditions associated with frailty were multiple sclerosis (OR 15·3; 99·75% CI 12·8–18·2); chronic fatigue syndrome (12·9; 11·1–15·0); chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (5·6; 5·2–6·1); connective tissue disease (5·4; 5·0–5·8); and diabetes (5·0; 4·7–5·2). Pre-frailty and frailty were significantly associated with mortality for all age strata in men and women (except in women aged 37–45 years) after adjustment for confounders.
Efforts to identify, manage, and prevent frailty should include middle-aged individuals with multimorbidity, in whom frailty is significantly associated with mortality, even after adjustment for number of long-term conditions, sociodemographics, and lifestyle. Research, clinical guidelines, and health-care services must shift focus from single conditions to the requirements of increasingly complex patient populations.
CSO Catalyst Grant and National Health Service Research for Scotland Career Research Fellowship.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
In this article we outline Burden of Treatment Theory, a new model of the relationship between sick people, their social networks, and healthcare services. Health services face the challenge of ...growing populations with long-term and life-limiting conditions, they have responded to this by delegating to sick people and their networks routine work aimed at managing symptoms, and at retarding - and sometimes preventing - disease progression. This is the new proactive work of patient-hood for which patients are increasingly accountable: founded on ideas about self-care, self-empowerment, and self-actualization, and on new technologies and treatment modalities which can be shifted from the clinic into the community. These place new demands on sick people, which they may experience as burdens of treatment.
As the burdens accumulate some patients are overwhelmed, and the consequences are likely to be poor healthcare outcomes for individual patients, increasing strain on caregivers, and rising demand and costs of healthcare services. In the face of these challenges we need to better understand the resources that patients draw upon as they respond to the demands of both burdens of illness and burdens of treatment, and the ways that resources interact with healthcare utilization.
Burden of Treatment Theory is oriented to understanding how capacity for action interacts with the work that stems from healthcare. Burden of Treatment Theory is a structural model that focuses on the work that patients and their networks do. It thus helps us understand variations in healthcare utilization and adherence in different healthcare settings and clinical contexts.
Full text
Available for:
CEKLJ, DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
To systematically review the literature on the implementation of e-health to identify: (i) barriers and facilitators to e-health implementation, and (ii) outstanding gaps in research on the subject.
...MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PSYCINFO and the Cochrane Library were searched for reviews published between 1 January 1995 and 17 March 2009. Studies had to be systematic reviews, narrative reviews, qualitative metasyntheses or meta-ethnographies of e-health implementation. Abstracts and papers were double screened and data were extracted on country of origin; e-health domain; publication date; aims and methods; databases searched; inclusion and exclusion criteria and number of papers included. Data were analysed qualitatively using normalization process theory as an explanatory coding framework.
Inclusion criteria were met by 37 papers; 20 had been published between 1995 and 2007 and 17 between 2008 and 2009. Methodological quality was poor: 19 papers did not specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria and 13 did not indicate the precise number of articles screened. The use of normalization process theory as a conceptual framework revealed that relatively little attention was paid to: (i) work directed at making sense of e-health systems, specifying their purposes and benefits, establishing their value to users and planning their implementation; (ii) factors promoting or inhibiting engagement and participation; (iii) effects on roles and responsibilities; (iv) risk management, and (v) ways in which implementation processes might be reconfigured by user-produced knowledge.
The published literature focused on organizational issues, neglecting the wider social framework that must be considered when introducing new technologies.
Full text
Available for:
CEKLJ, DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, ODKLJ, OILJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK, VSZLJ
PDF
