Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28259155›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2017

AIMD - a validated, simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies.

Peter Bragge, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Cynthia Lokker, Heather Colquhoun, AIMD Writing/Working Group

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Interventions to improve cancer survivorship among Indigenous Peoples and communities: a systematic review with a narrative synthesis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Peter BraggeBehaviourWorks Australia, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University, 8 Scenic Boulevard, Clayton, VIC, 3800, Australia. peter.bragge@monash.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-0745-5131
Jeremy M GrimshawClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8M5, Canada.
Cynthia LokkerDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.
Heather ColquhounDepartment of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, 160-500 University Ave, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V7, Canada.
AIMD Writing/Working Group

Funding

CIHR FRN#88368
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProliferation of terms describing the science of effectively promoting and supporting the use of research evidence in healthcare policy and practice has hampered understanding and development of the field. To address this, an international Terminology Working Group developed and published a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies. This paper presents results of validation work and a second international workgroup meeting, culminating in the updated AIMD framework [Aims, Ingredients, Mechanism, Delivery].

methodsFramework validity was evaluated against terminology schemas (n = 51); primary studies (n = 37); and reporting guidelines (n = 10). Framework components were independently categorized as fully represented, partly represented, or absent by two researchers. Opportunities to refine the framework were systematically recorded. A meeting of the expanded international Terminology Working Group updated the framework by reviewing and deliberating upon validation findings and refinement proposals.

resultsThere was variation in representativeness of the components across the three types of literature, in particular for the component 'causal mechanisms'. Analysis of primary studies revealed that representativeness of this concept lowered from 92 to 68% if only explicit, rather than explicit and non-explicit references to causal mechanisms were included. All components were very well represented in reporting guidelines, however the level of description of these was lower than in other types of literature. Twelve opportunities were identified to improve the framework, 9 of which were operationalized at the meeting. The updated AIMD framework comprises four components: (1) Aims: what do you want your intervention to achieve and for whom? (2) Ingredients: what comprises the intervention? (3) Mechanisms: how do you propose the intervention will work? and (4) Delivery: how will you deliver the intervention?

conclusionsThe draft simplified framework was validated with reference to a wide range of relevant literature and improvements have enhanced useability. The AIMD framework could aid in the promotion of evidence into practice, remove barriers to understanding how interventions work, enhance communication of interventions and support knowledge synthesis. Future work needs to focus on developing and testing resources and educational initiatives to optimize use of the AIMD framework in collaboration with relevant end-user groups.

Indexed as

Health PolicyQuality of Health CareCommunicationCooperative BehaviorHumansQualitative ResearchDissemination and implementationFramework validationHealthcare quality improvementImplementation scienceKnowledge translation

Identifiers

PMID28259155
PMCPMC5336675

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.