ArticleImplementation science communications2026
Challenges in measuring acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility: a case study in the pediatric intensive care unit.
Article in Implementation science communications, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRigorous development and evaluation of implementation outcome measures is needed to advance the field of implementation science. The Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM), and the Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) are commonly used, psychometrically validated measures. The objective of the current analysis was to analyze use of the AIM, FIM, and IAM in a single-center pediatric intensive care (PICU) unit study.
methodsThis was a secondary analysis of a mixed-methods interventional study. The initial project studied development of a novel cardiac arrest ventilation rate metronome to improve adherence to guideline-recommended ventilation rates during CPR; study components included contextual inquiry, participatory intervention design, and simulation usability testing. Using a purposive sampling strategy for pre-implementation contextual inquiry, eligible participants included multidisciplinary PICU clinicians. The pre-implementation questionnaire asked about current cardiac arrest ventilation practices and perceived acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of our proposed intervention (AIM, FIM, and IAM). Five-point scale Likert data were summarized using descriptive statistics (medians and interquartile ranges). A score of > 3 was considered favorable.
resultsOf 133 started instances of the pre-implementation survey, 107 were completed (80.5%). The response rate was 30.6% (107/350). Respondents included 34 nurses (31.8%), 18 respiratory therapists (16.8%), and 55 ordering providers (physicians and nurse practitioners; 51.4%). Most respondents (79/107; 73.8%) had previously participated in > 10 PICU cardiac arrests. Appropriateness, acceptability, and feasibility of the ventilation metronome were favorable (appropriateness median: 4 [IQR 4,5]; acceptability median: 4 [IQR 3,5]; feasibility median: 4 [IQR 4,4.5]). For each AIM, IAM, and FIM statement, ≥24.3% of all responses were the highest value on the 5-point scale. Of the 19.5% of survey instances with only partial responses, all but one (26/27; 96.3%) were stopped at the AIM, IAM, FIM matrix of statements.
conclusionsIn this single-center PICU study utilizing the previously validated Acceptability of Intervention Measure, Feasibility of Intervention Measure, and Intervention Appropriateness Measure, there were several challenges associated with the use of these scales, including (1) survey responses that were terminated at the portion of the questionnaire presenting the AIM, IAM, and FIM and (2) ceiling effect.
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.