Table 4.
Responses to NoMAD by Normalization Process Theory domain.
| Domain | Option A | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N (missing) | n Option A | Agree n (%) | Neutral n (%) | Disagree n (%) | Median (IQR)a | Mean (SD)a | |
| Coherence | |||||||
| I can see how PAP differs from usual ways of working | 117 (8) | 112 | 76 (67.9) | 28 (25.0) | 8 (7.1) | 4 (3–4) | 3.8 (0.87) |
| Staff in this organisation have a shared understanding of the purpose of PAP | 117 (8) | 114 | 64 (56.1) | 45 (39.5) | 5 (4.4) | 4 (3–4) | 3.6 (0.77) |
| I understand how PAP affects the nature of my own/my staff's work | 114 (11) | 108 | 52 (48.1) | 50 (46.3) | 6 (5.6) | 3 (3–4) | 3.5 (0.72) |
| I can see the potential value of PAP for my work | 115 (10) | 107 | 82 (76.6) | 22 (20.6) | 3 (2.8) | 4 (4–4) | 3.92 (0.71) |
| Cognitive participation | |||||||
| There are key people who drive PAP forward and get others involved | 115 (10) | 108 | 51 (47.2) | 42 (38.9) | 15 (13.9) | 3 (3–4) | 3.4 (1.0) |
| I’m open to working with colleagues/ staff in new ways to use PAP | 117 (8) | 109 | 103 (94.5) | 6 (5.5) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (4–5) | 4.4 (0.59) |
| I will continue to support PAP | 115 (10) | 112 | 96 (85.7) | 16 (14.3) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (4–5) | 4.3 (0.7) |
| Collective action | |||||||
| I can easily integrate/take decisions about PAP into my existing work | 116 (9) | 109 | 63 (57.8) | 38 (34.9) | 8 (7.3) | 4 (3–4) | 3.7 (0.88) |
| PAP disrupts working relationshipsb | 118 (7) | 110 | 2 (1.8) | 15 (13.6) | 93 (84.5) | 4 (4–5) | 4.24 (0.79) |
| I have confidence in my colleagues/staff's ability to use PAP | 118 (7) | 114 | 88 (77.2) | 24 (21.0) | 2 (1.8) | 3 (1–2) | 4.04 (0.75) |
| Work is assigned to those with skills appropriate to PAP | 117 (8) | 107 | 60 (56.0) | 40 (37.4) | 7 (6.5) | 3 (2–3) | 3.6 (0.75) |
| Sufficient training is provided to enable staff/managers to implement PAP | 116 (9) | 100 | 26 (26.0) | 40 (40.0) | 34 (34.0) | 4 (2–4) | 2.9 (0.93) |
| Sufficient resources are available to support PAP | 118 (7) | 108 | 29 (26.9) | 48 (44.4) | 31 (28.7) | 4 (2–4) | 2.93 (1.02) |
| Management/I as a manager adequately supports PAP | 113 (12) | 90 | 46 (51.1) | 39 (43.3) | 5 (5.6) | 3 (2–3) | 3.6 (0.78) |
| Reflexive monitoring | |||||||
| I am aware of reports about the effects of PAP | 116 (9) | 113 | 42 (37.1) | 37 (32.7) | 34 (30.1) | 3 (2–4) | 3.08 (1.06) |
| The staff agree that PAP is worthwhile | 17 (8) | 113 | 68 (60.2) | 40 (35.4) | 5 (4.4) | 2 (2–3) | 3.7 (0.75) |
| I value the effects that PAP has had on my work | 116 (9) | 99 | 48 (48.5) | 46 (46.5) | 5 (5.1) | 3 (2–3) | 3.51 (0.75) |
| Feedback about PAP can be used to improve it in the future | 115 (10) | 109 | 89 (81.2) | 18 (16.5) | 2 (1.8) | 2 (2–2) | 4.02 (0.73) |
| I/the staff can modify how I/they work with PAP | 117 (8) | 104 | 63 (60.6) | 36 (34.6) | 5 (4.8) | 2 (2–3) | 3.63 (0.78) |
IQR, interquartile range; SD, standard deviation.
a
Medians and means are calculated on the original 5-point scale.
b
Item reverse scored. In the survey most of the items were formulated as PAP for children with obesity. Text in italic font are adjustments made so that the item would be answerable also by managers.