The NASSS (Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread and Sustainability) framework use over time: A scoping review
Authors: Shin Hwayeon Danielle , Hamovitch Emily , Gatov Evgenia , MacKinnon Madison , Samawi Luma , Boateng Rhonda , Thorpe Kevin , Barwick Melanie 
Published: November 2023

Background

The Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, Sustainability (NASSS) framework (2017) was established as an evidence-based, theory-informed tool to predict and evaluate the success of implementing health and care technologies. While the NASSS is gaining popularity, its use has not been systematically described. Literature reviews on the applications of popular implementation frameworks such as RE-AIM and CFIR have enabled their advancement in the implementation science field. Similarly, we sought to advance the science of implementation and application of theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) in research by exploring the application of the NASSS in the five years since its inception.

Objective

We aim to understand the characteristics of studies that used the NASSS, how it was used, and the lessons learned from its application.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. We searched the following databases on December 20, 2022: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and LISTA. We used typologies and frameworks to characterize evidence to address our aim.

Results

This review included 57 studies, which were a mix of qualitative (n=28), mixed/multi-methods (n=13), case studies (n=6), observational (n=3), experimental (n=3), and other designs (e.g., quality improvement) (n=4). The four most common types of digital applications being implemented were telemedicine/virtual care (n=24), personal health devices (n=10), digital interventions, such as internet Cognitive Behavioural Therapies (n=10), and knowledge generation applications (n=9). Studies used the NASSS to inform study design (n=9), data collection (n=35), analysis (n=41), data presentation (n=33), and interpretation (n=39). Most studies applied the NASSS retrospectively to implementation (n=33). The remainder applied the NASSS prospectively (n=15) or concurrently (n=8) with implementation. We also collated reported barriers and enablers to implementation. We found the most reported barriers fell within the Organization and Adopter System domains, and the most frequently reported enablers fell within the Value Proposition domain. Eighteen studies highlighted the NASSS as a valuable and practical resource, particularly for unravelling complexities, comprehending implementation context, understanding contextual relevance in implementing health technology, and recognizing the NASSS’ adaptable nature to cater to researchers’ requirements.

Conclusions

Most studies used the NASSS retrospectively, which may be attributed to the framework’s novelty. However, this finding highlights the need for prospective and concurrent application of the NASSS within the implementation process. In addition, almost all included studies reported multiple domains as barriers and enablers to implementation, indicating that implementation is a highly complex process that requires careful preparation to ensure implementation success. Finally, we identified a need for better reporting when using the NASSS in implementation research to contribute to the collective knowledge in the field.