השוואת שיטות

	תיאוריית תהליך הנורמליזציה (NPT)	טקסונומיית תוצאי יישום
תחום	מדע היישום	מדע היישום
משפחה	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
שנת המקור	2006	2011
הוגה השיטה	May, C. R.	Proctor, E. K., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., et al.
סוג	Framework	Taxonomy
מקור מכונן	May, C. R. (2006). A rational model for assessing and evaluating complex interventions in health care. BMC Health Services Research, 6, 86.	Proctor, E. K., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G. A., Bunger, A., ... & Rojas, D. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(2), 65-76.
כינויים	NPT, normalization theory, routinization	implementation outcomes, Proctor framework, implementation success measures
קשורות	5	5
תקציר	Normalization Process Theory (NPT) is a sociological framework developed by Carl May and colleagues to explain how new interventions become routinely embedded ('normalized') in organizational and clinical practice. Unlike efficiency-focused frameworks that measure adoption and fidelity, NPT explains the social processes through which interventions transition from external innovations to normal practice. NPT identifies four key mechanisms (Coherence, Cognitive Participation, Collective Action, Reflexive Monitoring) that collectively determine whether an intervention becomes 'the way we do things here' or remains a temporary project.	The Implementation Outcome Taxonomy is a framework defining eight measurable dimensions for assessing implementation success: Acceptability, Adoption, Appropriateness, Feasibility, Fidelity, Implementation Cost, Penetration, and Sustainability. Developed by Proctor et al. (2011), it provides a standardized vocabulary and measurement approach to distinguish implementation process outcomes (how well was the intervention delivered?) from clinical outcomes (did patients get better?). This taxonomy is foundational to implementation science because it acknowledges that an evidence-based intervention can be effective (clinical outcome) but poorly implemented (implementation outcome), or feasible to deliver but not adopted by organizations.