Table 4.

Røsstad et al. link constructs to data and compare sites [122]. (Reproduced from BMC Health Services Research, published under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) licence)

	Municipalities
	A	B	C	D	E	F
	PaTH in use in full scalea		Elements of PaTH in usea		PaTH not in usea
Makes sense (coherenceb)
Expecting PaTH to be useful	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Regular staff understood how to use PaTH	Mixed	Mixed	Mixed	Mixed	Mixed	Mixed
Commitment and engagement (cognitive participationb)
Sustained leadership	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No
Practice in using checklists	Intensive	Intensive	Minimal	Minimal	Minimal	Minimal
General attention to PaTH at workplace	Yes	Yes	No	Nurses only	No	No
Facilitating use of PaTH (collective actionb)
Extra personnel resources	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No
Major competing priorities	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes
Usability in electronic health record	Good	Fair	Poor	Poor	Poor	Poor
Working schedule facilitated for PaTH	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No
Checklists incorporated in daily routines	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No
Value of PaTH (reflexive monitoringb)
Impact on collaboration with the hospital	Mixed	Mixed	No	No	No	No
Impact on collaboration with GPs	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No
Impact on service quality	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes
Value for individual nurse/nursing assistant	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No
Valued as a management tool	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No

^aAssessed 24 months (B–F) and 32 months (A) after introduction of PaTH in the municipalities

^bCore constructs of the Normalization Process Theory