Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

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

By Glyn Elwyn, France Légaré, Trudy Weijden, Adrian Edwards and Carl May

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.<br/><br/>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.<br/><br/>Results: 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.<br/><br/>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 enacte

Topics: R1, HD28
Year: 2008
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.soton.ac.uk:163593
Provided by: e-Prints Soton

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. doi
  2. (2006). A rational model for assessing and evaluating complex interventions in health care.
  3. (2007). Adoption of telemedicine in Scottish remote and rural general practices: a qualitative study. doi
  4. (2007). Advocating Mandatory Patient 'Autonomy' in Healthcare: Adverse Reactions and Side Effects. Health Care Anal in press. doi
  5. (2007). AG: An approach to measuring the quality of breast cancer decisions. Patient Educ Couns doi
  6. (2003). Back to norms! On the scope and dynamics of norms and normative action. Current Sociology doi
  7. Beyond the limits of clinical governance: the case of mental health in primary care. doi
  8. C: Medical communication and technology: a video-based process study of the use of decision aids in primary care consultations. BMC Med Inform Decis Making doi
  9. (1995). Cassel CK: Nonabandonment: a central obligation for physicians. doi
  10. (2001). Challenges in family practice related to informed and shared decision-making: a survey of preceptors of medical students. CMAJ
  11. (2002). Clinical autonomy, individual and collective: the problem of changing doctors' behaviour. Soc Sci Med doi
  12. CR: Teledermatology in the UK: lessons in service innovation.
  13. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. doi
  14. (2000). Do patients wish to be involved in decision-making in the consultation? A cross sectional survey with video vignettes. BMJ doi
  15. (2006). DW: Problems and prospects in the study of physician-patient interaction: 30 years of research. Annual Review of Sociology doi
  16. (2006). EF, Thomson R: Doctor-patient interaction in a randomised controlled trial of decision-support tools. Soc Sci Med doi
  17. (2003). ER: The effect of decision aids on the agreement between women's and physician's decisional conflict about hormone replacement therapy. Patient Educ Couns doi
  18. (2003). Feldman-Stewart D: Validation of a decision regret scale. Med Decis Making doi
  19. (2007). GPs' use of problem solving therapy for depression: a qualitative study of barriers to and enablers of evidence based care. BMC Family Practice doi
  20. (2005). Grol R: The OPTION scale : measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision-making tasks. Health Expectations doi
  21. (2007). Grol R: Toward a model for field-testing patient decision-support technologies: a qualitative field-testing study. doi
  22. (1966). H: Medical innovation: a diffusion study Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill; doi
  23. (2006). I: Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: a systematic review of health professionals' perceptions. Implementation Science doi
  24. (2006). ID: Adoption and sustainability of decision support for patients facing health decisions: an implementation case study in nursing. Implement Sci
  25. (2006). ID: Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: a systematic review of health professionals' perceptions. Implement Sci doi
  26. (2006). Impact of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework on the agreement and the difference between patients' and physicians' decisional conflict. Med Decis Making doi
  27. (2006). Integrating Decision-making and Mental Health Interventions Research: Research Directions. Clin Psychol doi
  28. (2007). Is the metaphor of 'barriers to change' useful in understanding implementation? Evidence from general medical practice. J Health Serv Res Policy doi
  29. Kyriakidou O: Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. doi
  30. (2004). Kyriakidou O: Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Quarterly doi
  31. (2006). Lacity MC: A review of the predictors, linkages, and biases in IT innovation adoption research. doi
  32. (2006). Llewellyn-Thomas H: Understanding treatment decision-making: contexts, commonalities, complexities, and challenges. Ann Behav Med doi
  33. (2005). MA: Treatment decision aids: conceptual issues and future directions. Health Expect doi
  34. (2003). Manufactured but not imported: new directions for research in shared decision-making support and skills. Patient Education & Counseling doi
  35. Normalizing Health Technologies London, Palgrave
  36. (1976). On Thought Experiments', Knowledge and Error: Sketches on the Psychology of Enquiry Dordrecht: D Reidel Publishing Co; doi
  37. (2002). Patient centredness in the MRCGP video examination: analysis of large cohort. BMJ doi
  38. (2007). Planning and studying improvement in patient care: the use of theoretical perspectives. Milbank Quarterly doi
  39. (2005). Pomey MP: Barriers and facilitators influencing call center nurses' decision support for callers facing values-sensitive decisions: a mixed methods study. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs doi
  40. (2004). Powerlessness, control and complexity: the experience of family physicians and a group model HMO. Annals of Family Medicine doi
  41. (2006). Primary health care professionals' views on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework in practice. Patient Education and Counseling doi
  42. (2007). Prominent strategy but rare in practice: shared decision-making and patient decision support technologies in the UK. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich doi
  43. Respecting the subjective: quality measurement from the patient's perspective. doi
  44. (2001). S: Implementing shared decision-making in routine practice: barriers and opportunities. Health Expectations doi
  45. (2000). Shared decision-making and the concept of equipoise: defining the competences of involving patients in healthcare choices. BJGP
  46. Strauss A: The discovery of grounded theory doi
  47. (2007). Support for self care for patients with chronic disease. doi
  48. (2004). T: Self-reported use of shared decision-making among breast cancer specialists and perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing this approach. Health Expect doi
  49. (1996). Talarczyk G: Patient satisfaction with health care decisions: the satisfaction with decision scale. Medical Decis Making doi
  50. (2003). TD: The economic sociology of conventions: Habit, custom, practice, and routine in market order. Annual Review of Sociology doi
  51. (2005). Technogovernance: evidence, subjectivity, and the clinical encounter in primary care medicine. Social Science and Medicine doi
  52. (2006). The Case for Shared Medical Decision-Making.
  53. (1995). The diffusion of innovation
  54. (1993). The Laboratory of the Mind: Thought Experiments doi
  55. (1995). The Person-Centered Psychotherapies. In Essential Psychotherapies Theory and Practice Edited by: Gurman A, Messer SB.
  56. (1998). The practice of autonomy: patients, doctors, and medical decisions doi
  57. (2005). Thought experiments. Metaphilosophy doi
  58. (2007). Timmermans DRM: Shared decision-making in the Netherlands. Z arztl Fortbild Qual Gesundh Wes
  59. (2007). Understanding the implementation of complex interventions in health care: the Normalization Process Model. doi
  60. (1999). W: Informed decision-making in outpatient setting: time to get back to basics. JAMA doi
  61. (2006). Whelan Y: The International Patient Decision Aids sStandards Collaboration: Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ
  62. Where is the theory? Evaluating the theoretical frameworks described in decision support technologies. Patient Educ Couns doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.