Porównaj metody
Przeglądaj wybrane metody obok siebie; wiersze, które się różnią, są wyróżnione.
| Teoria Procesu Normalizacji (NPT)× | Ocena wierności wdrożenia× | |
|---|---|---|
| Dziedzina | Nauka o wdrażaniu | Nauka o wdrażaniu |
| Rodzina | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Rok powstania≠ | 2006 | 2004 |
| Twórca≠ | May, C. R. | National Institutes of Health Behavior Change Consortium; Bellg et al. |
| Typ≠ | Framework | Method |
| Źródło pierwotne≠ | May, C. R. (2006). A rational model for assessing and evaluating complex interventions in health care. BMC Health Services Research, 6, 86. DOI ↗ | Bellg, A. J., Borrelli, B., Resnick, B., Hecht, J., Minicucci, D. S., Ory, M., ... & Treatment Fidelity Workgroup of the National Institutes of Health Behavior Change Consortium. (2004). Enhancing treatment fidelity in health behavior change studies: Best practices and recommendations from the NIH Behavior Change Consortium. Health Psychology, 23(5), 443-451. DOI ↗ |
| Inne nazwy≠ | NPT, normalization theory, routinization | fidelity, treatment fidelity, protocol adherence, implementation fidelity |
| Pokrewne | 5 | 5 |
| Podsumowanie≠ | 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. | Fidelity Assessment is the systematic measurement of the degree to which an intervention is delivered as designed in real-world practice. Formalized by the National Institutes of Health Behavior Change Consortium (Bellg et al. 2004) and expanded in MRC guidance (Moore et al. 2015), fidelity assessment is critical to implementation science because it answers: 'Did we deliver the intervention correctly?' A clinical trial may show a treatment works, but if delivered poorly in practice, benefits disappear. Fidelity assessment prevents misattribution of failure (was the intervention weak, or was implementation poor?) and guides coaching to improve quality. |
| ScholarGateZbiór danych ↗ |
|
|