ArticleImplementation science communications2025
Danish translation and cultural adaptation of three implementation outcomes of healthcare innovations-acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility.
Article in Implementation science communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImplementation science has become increasingly important for improving uptake of healthcare innovations, which typically involves a broad range of stakeholders. The Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM), and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) are generic and adaptable outcome measures to assess the implementation of innovations across various settings and populations. However, their use in Denmark requires translation into the Danish language and a cross-cultural adaptation into the Danish healthcare context.
methodsThe study aimed to translate and cross-culturally adapt the AIM, IAM, and FIM for use in Danish healthcare settings. The translation process followed Beaton's guidelines, encompassing six stages: translation, synthesis, backward translation, expert committee review, pretesting, and appraisal of the adaptation process. Both quantitative (questionnaires) and qualitative (interviews) methods were applied during pretesting to evaluate the Danish versions.
resultsAll stages of the translation and adaption process were completed. Linguistic challenges were identified, such as ensuring distinction between items, but they were resolved during the expert review. Pretesting with 33 Danish healthcare professionals showed that items were generally clear and relevant, but some overlap between AIM, IAM, and FIM items caused confusion. For example, IAM item 4 ("… seems like a good match") was difficult to interpret, leading to missing responses, and FIM item 3 was revised to improve clarity.
conclusionsThe translation and cross‑cultural adaptation, including pretesting, of the AIM, IAM, and FIM resulted in Danish versions that maintained conceptual alignment with the originals. While additional evaluation across interventions, contexts, and practices will strengthen the evidence base, the current versions already provide a practical tool for assessing implementation outcomes in Danish healthcare contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.