Page 136 - Demo

Chapter 5134Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations Normalisation Measurement Development (NoMAD)Experimental condition Control conditionTP-0 TP-1 TP-0 TP-1Cognitive Participation 4.12 (0.61) 3.79 (0.62) 4.09 (0.73) 3.82 (0.69)Collective Action 3.41 (0.36) 3.41 (0.44) 3.58 (0.53) 3.36 (0.59)Reflexive Monitoring 3.70 (0.57) 3.69 (0.58) 3.76 (0.58) 3.35 (0.82)Effect measurement NAF Attitude 3.85 (0.29) 3.78 (0.33) 3.84 (0.35) 3.77 (0.31)Implementation process in the CoPQualitative findings on the development of NAF implementation plans are described in four sections. Choices for implementation interventions Before choices in implementation plans could be made by implementers, they needed to formulate a clear objective for implementation of NAF in their organisations. They found this more difficult than expected. The first author shared information on stages in implementation processes and social mechanisms of Normalisation Process Theory (NPT). Implementers evaluated this as helpful for assessing at what stage their organisation was regarding implementing innovations in line with the CCA, giving way to articulating their objective regarding the NAF e-tool. This objective centred around the reduction of involuntary care. The NAF could serve as a tool to raise awareness among care staff and support them in pursuing voluntary care. An additional goal was gauging the perspective of care staff on the value of NAF in reducing involuntary care before it was scaled up in organisations.Next, implementers identified determinants of NAF implementation. Hindering factors included that organisations might lack vision, strategy, and support for implementing NAF. Additionally, the process of informing all managers, team leaders, and behavioural specialists responsible for care teams was acknowledged as potentially time-consuming. Finally, potential scepticism and resistance among care staff was mentioned, due to concerns about heavy workloads and staff shortages. Promoting