Page - 187 - in Applied Interdisciplinary Theory in Health Informatics - Knowledge Base for Practitioners

3.3. Next steps and concluding remarks We now invite readers to continue with the example, by adding their own questions in the right-hand columnsof the blank table (see Appendix). You may choose to do this for select components, or all of them4 – or you may use the table to think through a different scenario of your own choosing. Before concluding with some questions about method, it may also be helpful to note the use of this table in communicating the NPT framework to others involved in an implementation planning or evaluation project. Implementation projects can involve a range of professional groups, conventions, and languages which means that familiar examples may be helpful in building shared understanding of the general principles of NPT. Taking the example questions in the right-hand columns of figure 3, we can see how reading from the left-most column to this question links the component, construct, and context specific question. We can therefore also see that reading in the reverse direction offers an opportunity for communicating NPT principles using questions rooted in contexts that may be more familiar to some participants. This may be helpful in building a shared understanding of the framework –of implementing the implementation study itself. Having derived research questions, the next step would be to consider research methods through which to conduct these investigations. Detailed discussion of the wide range of potential methods is beyond the scope of this chapter, and readers may look to the systematic review cited at the beginning of this section for a more detailed overview [1]. For those who may be implementing health informatics interventions, but be unfamiliar with process evaluations in general, this may provide a useful introduction to methods (particularly those involving qualitative observation) that have been used effectively in previous projects but may not feature commonly in other evaluations of health informatics systems. References [1] C.R. May, A. Cummings, M. Girling, M. Bracher, F.S. Mair, C.M. May, E. Murray, M. Myall, T. Rapley, and T. Finch, Using Normalization Process Theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review, Implement. Sci. 13 (2018) 80. doi:10.1186/s13012-018-0758-1. [2] C. May, and T. Finch, Implementing, Embedding, and Integrating Practices: An Outline of Normalization Process Theory, Sociology. 43 (2009) 535–554. doi:10.1177/0038038509103208. [3] C. May, T. Rapley, F.S. Mair, S. Treweek, E. Murray, L. Ballini, A. Macfarlane, M. Girling, and T.L. Finch, Normalization Process Theory On-line Users’ Manual, Toolkit and NoMAD instrument, (2015). http://www.normalizationprocess.org. [4] NHS Highland, Infection Control is everyone’s responsibility, (2013). http://www.nhshighland.scot.nhs.uk/News/Pages/InfectionControliseveryone’sresponsibility.aspx (accessed November 18, 2018). [5] Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Safeguarding children is everyone’s responsibility, 2017. http://www.cwp.nhs.uk/media/2040/safeguarding-children-is-everyoness- responsibility.pdf. [6] Information Governance Alliance (IGA), Information Governance is the responsibility of everyone, 2015. https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/looking-after-information/data-security-and- information-governance/information-governance-alliance-iga/information-governance-resources/new- resource-consultations/new-publications-closed-consultations/informatio. 4 For further reference, readers may view a fully completed version of this table applied to an evaluation study of a nutritional care intervention (see Additional File 2 [17]) M.BracherandC.R.May / ImplementingandEmbeddingHealth InformaticsSystems 187