ABSTRACT
Background: Implementation outcomes measures can be used to assess the implementation of complex health and social care interventions, but evidence for the use of these measures, and their psychometric properties, remains limited. The NoMAD ( Normalisation Me asure Development) survey, based on Normalisation Process Theory, was developed to assess, monitor, or measure factors likely to affect normalisation of a new practice from the perspective of participants who are engaged in an implementation process. Since publication in 2015, NoMAD has been translated into several languages and is increasingly being used in health and care research. This systematic review will identify, appraise, and synthesise the existing literature on the use of NoMAD as an implementation outcome measure, focusing on use and application across different studies and settings, and on its properties as a measurement tool. Methods: We will systematically search the bibliographic databases Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed for articles reporting empirical data in peer-reviewed journals. A citation search will also be undertaken in Google Scholar for primary NoMAD publications. Studies will be eligible for inclusion if they: (a) specify using NoMAD as a method and report results from using it, and/or (b) report a translation and/or validation study of NoMAD's measurement properties. Screening of abstracts and full text articles will be done independently by two researchers. Data extraction will be structured to allow collection and descriptive synthesis of data on study characteristics, use of NoMAD, psychometric results, and authors' reflections and recommendations. Conclusions: This review will provide the first synthesis of how NoMAD has been applied in health and care research, and evidence on its properties as an outcome measure since its publication. This will be used to update existing freely accessible guidance for researchers and other users, and disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, and engagement activities with researchers and practitioners.
Background: Implementation outcome measures are survey tools that have been developed to assess the success of implementation of health and social care interventions. Using theory, the NoMAD ( Normalisation Me asure Development) survey was developed to assess implementation processes, by asking structured questions of persons who are involved in a specific implementation. Once measures like NoMAD are used enough over time, and in a range of studies of different kinds of interventions in different settings, we can collate evidence from those studies to decide (1) how useful they are, and (2) how scientifically robust they are for making assessments in research. In this review, we will search the published literature for papers that report data from studies using NoMAD and summarise their characteristics and results to provide recommendations about how useful and scientifically robust NoMAD is at this time. Methods:We will search databases (Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed), and a google search engine for published studies. We will include papers if they have used the NoMAD survey in their research and report results in their paper or have translated it into another language and tested it scientifically. Decisions about whether to include a paper will be made independently by two researchers, compared, and then agreed. A structured form will be used to capture the same information from each paper. We will summarise information on the studies, how they used NoMAD, what scientific evidence they provide about it, and what authors thought about using it. Conclusions: This will be the first review of studies using the NoMAD survey since it was published in 2015. The results will be used to update publicly available guidance for researchers and other users. We will also share our findings directly through engagement activities with researchers and practitioners and will publish them in scientific journals.