The NASSS-CAT Tools for Understanding, Guiding, Monitoring, and Researching Technology Implementation Projects in Health and Social Care: Protocol for an Evaluation Study in Real-World Settings.
NASSS (nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, sustainability) framework
complexity
diffusion of innovation
evaluation
implementation
innovation adoption
project management
scale-up
sustainability
theory-driven evaluation
Journal
JMIR research protocols
ISSN: 1929-0748
Titre abrégé: JMIR Res Protoc
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101599504
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 May 2020
13 May 2020
Historique:
received:
31
10
2019
accepted:
13
12
2019
revised:
06
12
2019
entrez:
14
5
2020
pubmed:
14
5
2020
medline:
14
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Projects to implement health care and social care innovations involving technologies are typically ambitious and complex. Many projects fail. Greenhalgh et al's nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) framework was developed to analyze the varied outcomes of such projects. We sought to extend the NASSS framework to produce practical tools for understanding, guiding, monitoring, and researching technology projects in health care or social care settings. Building on NASSS and a complexity assessment tool (CAT), the NASSS-CAT tools were developed (in various formats) in seven co-design workshops involving 50 stakeholders (industry executives, technical designers, policymakers, managers, clinicians, and patients). Using action research, they were and are being tested prospectively on a sample of case studies selected for variety in conditions, technologies, settings, scope and scale, policy context, and project goals. The co-design process resulted in four tools, available as free downloads. NASSS-CAT SHORT is a taster to introduce the instrument and gauge interest. NASSS-CAT LONG is intended to support reflection, due diligence, and preliminary planning. It maps complexity through stakeholder discussion across six domains, using free-text open questions (designed to generate a rich narrative and surface uncertainties and interdependencies) and a closed-question checklist; this version includes an action planning section. NASSS-CAT PROJECT is a 35-item instrument for monitoring how subjective complexity in a technology implementation project changes over time. NASSS-CAT INTERVIEW is a set of prompts for conducting semistructured research or evaluation interviews. Preliminary data from empirical case studies suggest that the NASSS-CAT tools can potentially identify, but cannot always help reconcile, contradictions and conflicts that block projects' progress. The NASSS-CAT tools are a useful addition to existing implementation tools and frameworks. Further support of the implementation projects is ongoing. We are currently producing digital versions of the tools, and plan (subject to further funding) to establish an online community of practice for people interested in using and improving the tools, and hold workshops for building cross-project collaborations. DERR1-10.2196/16861.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Projects to implement health care and social care innovations involving technologies are typically ambitious and complex. Many projects fail. Greenhalgh et al's nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) framework was developed to analyze the varied outcomes of such projects.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
We sought to extend the NASSS framework to produce practical tools for understanding, guiding, monitoring, and researching technology projects in health care or social care settings.
METHODS
METHODS
Building on NASSS and a complexity assessment tool (CAT), the NASSS-CAT tools were developed (in various formats) in seven co-design workshops involving 50 stakeholders (industry executives, technical designers, policymakers, managers, clinicians, and patients). Using action research, they were and are being tested prospectively on a sample of case studies selected for variety in conditions, technologies, settings, scope and scale, policy context, and project goals.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The co-design process resulted in four tools, available as free downloads. NASSS-CAT SHORT is a taster to introduce the instrument and gauge interest. NASSS-CAT LONG is intended to support reflection, due diligence, and preliminary planning. It maps complexity through stakeholder discussion across six domains, using free-text open questions (designed to generate a rich narrative and surface uncertainties and interdependencies) and a closed-question checklist; this version includes an action planning section. NASSS-CAT PROJECT is a 35-item instrument for monitoring how subjective complexity in a technology implementation project changes over time. NASSS-CAT INTERVIEW is a set of prompts for conducting semistructured research or evaluation interviews. Preliminary data from empirical case studies suggest that the NASSS-CAT tools can potentially identify, but cannot always help reconcile, contradictions and conflicts that block projects' progress.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The NASSS-CAT tools are a useful addition to existing implementation tools and frameworks. Further support of the implementation projects is ongoing. We are currently producing digital versions of the tools, and plan (subject to further funding) to establish an online community of practice for people interested in using and improving the tools, and hold workshops for building cross-project collaborations.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)
UNASSIGNED
DERR1-10.2196/16861.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32401224
pii: v9i5e16861
doi: 10.2196/16861
pmc: PMC7254278
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e16861Informations de copyright
©Trisha Greenhalgh, Harvey Maylor, Sara Shaw, Joseph Wherton, Chrysanthi Papoutsi, Victoria Betton, Natalie Nelissen, Andreas Gremyr, Alexander Rushforth, Mona Koshkouei, John Taylor. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 13.05.2020.
Références
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018 Aug 1;25(8):1080-1088
pubmed: 29788380
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013 Jan;18(1):40-3
pubmed: 23393041
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(23):iii-157
pubmed: 11785749
Health Res Policy Syst. 2017 Aug 14;15(1):70
pubmed: 28806989
JAMA. 2018 Jan 16;319(3):219
pubmed: 29340691
J Clin Pathol. 2017 Dec;70(12):1010-1018
pubmed: 28780514
Int J Med Inform. 2013 May;82(5):e73-86
pubmed: 23146626
Clin Psychol (New York). 2017 Sep;24(3):223-240
pubmed: 28966479
PLoS Med. 2009 Nov;6(11):e1000186
pubmed: 19956674
Int J Med Inform. 2017 Jan;97:86-97
pubmed: 27919399
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Apr 17;20(4):e150
pubmed: 29625956
BMJ Open. 2016 Feb 15;6(2):e010208
pubmed: 26880671
BMJ. 2010 Jun 16;340:c3111
pubmed: 20554687
BMJ. 2010 Nov 16;341:c5814
pubmed: 21081595
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;212:219-24
pubmed: 26063280
Am J Community Psychol. 2009 Jun;43(3-4):267-76
pubmed: 19390961
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Mar 1;24(2):246-250
pubmed: 28011595
Soc Sci Med. 2014 Mar;104:210-9
pubmed: 24581080
BMC Med. 2018 May 14;16(1):66
pubmed: 29754584
Health Policy Plan. 2010 Mar;25(2):104-11
pubmed: 19917651
Ann Surg Oncol. 2011 Aug;18(8):2116-25
pubmed: 21442345
BMJ Open. 2016 Jan 29;6(1):e009388
pubmed: 26826147
Am J Surg Pathol. 2018 Jan;42(1):53-59
pubmed: 28877052
PLoS Med. 2010 Nov 02;7(11):e1000360
pubmed: 21072245
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Apr 23;22(4):e15521
pubmed: 32324143
Bull World Health Organ. 2012 May 1;90(5):357-64
pubmed: 22589569
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Nov 01;19(11):e367
pubmed: 29092808
BMJ. 2001 Sep 15;323(7313):625-8
pubmed: 11557716
Milbank Q. 2011 Dec;89(4):533-63
pubmed: 22188347
BMJ. 2008 Jun 7;336(7656):1281-3
pubmed: 18535071