The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 26 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: A wide range of diverse and inconsistent terminology exists in the field of knowledge translation. This limits the conduct of evidence syntheses, impedes communication and collaboration, and undermines knowledge translation of research findings in diverse settings. Improving uniformity of terminology could help address these challenges. In 2012, we convened an international working group to explore the idea of developing a common terminology and an overarching framework for knowledge translation interventions. FINDINGS: Methods included identifying and summarizing existing frameworks, mapping together a subset of those frameworks, and convening a multi-disciplinary group to begin working toward consensus. The group considered four potential approaches to creating a simplified framework: melding existing taxonomies, creating a framework of intervention mechanisms rather than intervention strategies, using a consensus process to expand one of the existing models/frameworks used by the group, or developing a new consensus framework. CONCLUSIONS: The work group elected to draft a new, simplified consensus framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems and policies. The framework will include four key components: strategies and techniques (active ingredients), how they function (causal mechanisms), how they are delivered (mode of delivery), and what they aim to change (intended targets). The draft framework needs to be further developed by feedback and consultation with the research community and tested for usefulness through application and evaluation.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
An international workgroup explored inconsistent knowledge translation terminology and considered four options for a simplified framework. They elected to draft a new consensus framework with four components—active ingredients, causal mechanisms, mode of delivery, and intended targets—to be refined and tested.
Key findings
- The workgroup considered four approaches: melding existing taxonomies, creating a framework of intervention mechanisms, expanding an existing framework via consensus, or developing a new consensus framework; it elected to develop a new consensus framework.
- The draft simplified framework categorizes interventions by four elements: intervention strategies and techniques (active ingredients), how they function (causal mechanisms), how they are delivered (mode of delivery), and what they aim to change (intended targets).
- A mapping exercise of four familiar frameworks/taxonomies—the Behaviour Change Wheel, the Cochrane EPOC framework, the Leeman Taxonomy, and the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy v1—did not result in a unified framework but illustrated key challenges.
- The paper reports that 35 researchers and information specialists were invited and 12 attended the two-day meeting; background cites 100 different KT terms and at least 61 dissemination/implementation models.
Methods
- An international workgroup was convened; 35 researchers and information specialists from Canada, the UK, USA, the Netherlands, and Australia were invited, and 12 attended a two-day meeting in Ottawa, Canada, in September 2012.
- Before the meeting, invitees shared frameworks they had developed or used; five attendees mapped four intervention frameworks/taxonomies into a single framework.
- During the meeting, participants presented their experiences, reviewed the mapping exercise, discussed four potential approaches, and agreed on a shared objective to work towards a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies.
Limitations
- Stated: the group was limited to 12 participants, and the authors aim to involve a larger group with broader representation in background and geography.
- Stated: the framework is a draft to encourage debate; it needs further development through feedback and consultation and testing for usefulness through application and evaluation, and whether it will be useful is an empirical question.
- Evident: the mapping exercise did not produce a unified framework, and the paper reports no validation or testing of the draft framework.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
21 Not checked yet · 6 Own interpretation · 3 Own result · 1 Own method · 1 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the mapping exercise did not result in a unified framework, it illustrated the key issues and challenges and served as a starting point for future work”
§ Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies > Background > Describing and applying frameworks for KT interventions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“terms within the taxonomies are not consistent in scope, scale or function, with some terms describing broad approaches to implementation (e.g., quality improvement) and others describing more discrete strategies (e.g., reminder systems).”
§ Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies > Background > Methods to develop a framework
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Systematic reviews on KT interventions consistently conclude that variability in intervention reporting impeded the synthesis [5-7].”
§ Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Flodgren G, Parmelli E, Doumit G, Gattellari M, O’Brien MA, Grimshaw J, Eccles MP: Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011. CD000125
- Not checked yetcites [6] O’Brien MA, Rogers S, Jamtvedt G, Oxman AD, Odgaard-Jensen J, Kristoffersen DT, Forsetlund L, Bainbridge D, Freemantle N, Davis DA, Haynes RB, Harvey EL: Educational outreach visits: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007. CD000409
- Not checked yetcites [7] Grilli R, Ramsay C, Minozzi S: Mass media interventions: effects on health services utilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002. CD000389
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A recent review of models and frameworks for dissemination and implementation suggests that at least 61 such models exist [8].”
§ Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8] Tabak RG, Khoong EC, Chambers DA, Brownson RC: Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research. Am J Prev Med 2012, 43:337–350. source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“McKibbon and colleagues attempted unsuccessfully to develop a search filter specific to KT [4]”
§ Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [4] McKibbon KA, Lokker C, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Davis DA, Straus SE: Search filters can find some but not all knowledge translation articles in MEDLINE: an analytic survey. J Clin Epidemiol 2012, 65:651–659. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This diversity and inconsistency of terminology is a potential barrier to synthesizing, advancing, and applying the findings from what we will refer to as knowledge translation.”
§ Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3] McKibbon KA, Lokker C, Wilczynski NL, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Davis DE, Haynes RB, Straus S: A cross-sectional study of the number and frequency of terms used to refer to knowledge translation in a body of health literature in 2006: a Tower of Babel? Implement Sci 2010, 5:16. source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A follow-up study aimed to develop definitional features of continuous quality improvement (CQI) [28] but found that subjective interpretation of constructs, difficulty measuring constructs, heterogeneity in published papers, and poor reporting of QI prevented the achievement of consensus on classifying QI interventions [28].”
§ Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies > Background > Methods to develop a framework
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] Dy SM, Taylor SL, Carr LH, Foy R, Pronovost PJ, Ovretveit J, Wachter RM, Rubenstein LV, Hempel S, McDonald KM, Shekelle PG: A framework for classifying patient safety practices: results from an expert consensus process. BMJ Qual Saf 2011, 20:618–624. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“only 46 of 100 KT terms were found in titles or abstract of KT articles [3].”
§ Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3] McKibbon KA, Lokker C, Wilczynski NL, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Davis DE, Haynes RB, Straus S: A cross-sectional study of the number and frequency of terms used to refer to knowledge translation in a body of health literature in 2006: a Tower of Babel? Implement Sci 2010, 5:16. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A wide range of diverse and inconsistent terminology exists in the field of knowledge translation.”
§ Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies > Abstract > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Walshe K: Pseudoinnovation: the development and spread of healthcare quality improvement methodologies. Int J Qual Health Care 2009, 21:153–159. source
- Not checked yetcites [3] McKibbon KA, Lokker C, Wilczynski NL, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Davis DE, Haynes RB, Straus S: A cross-sectional study of the number and frequency of terms used to refer to knowledge translation in a body of health literature in 2006: a Tower of Babel? Implement Sci 2010, 5:16. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This type of consensus was considered not to be feasible on the basis of a review of two studies of definitions of quality improvement (QI) interventions.”
§ Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies > Background > Methods to develop a framework
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27] Rubenstein LV, Hempel S, Farmer MM, Asch SM, Yano EM, Dougherty D, Shekelle PW: Finding order in heterogeneity: types of quality-improvement intervention publications. Qual Saf Health Care 2008, 17:403–408. source
- Not checked yetcites [28] Dy SM, Taylor SL, Carr LH, Foy R, Pronovost PJ, Ovretveit J, Wachter RM, Rubenstein LV, Hempel S, McDonald KM, Shekelle PG: A framework for classifying patient safety practices: results from an expert consensus process. BMJ Qual Saf 2011, 20:618–624. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 9
- Probably not a substantial claim. 12
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mapping exercise highlighted several obstacles to melding existing taxonomies: the terms used within taxonomies overlap and the relationships among them are unclear”
§ Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies > Background > Methods to develop a framework
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The workgroup agreed on the option of developing a new consensus framework of KT interventions that would guide the development of a standardized vocabulary and the development of common language.”
§ Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies > Background > Methods to develop a framework
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“in an analysis of the titles and abstracts of over 20,000 quality improvement publications, Walshe found that authors used numerous different terms to present an essentially similar set of approaches, with terms changing in frequency of use over time [2].”
§ Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Walshe K: Pseudoinnovation: the development and spread of healthcare quality improvement methodologies. Int J Qual Health Care 2009, 21:153–159. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The KT field is in the early stages of development and as yet lacks shared conceptualizations of problems, potential solutions, and a common language.”
§ Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3] McKibbon KA, Lokker C, Wilczynski NL, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Davis DE, Haynes RB, Straus S: A cross-sectional study of the number and frequency of terms used to refer to knowledge translation in a body of health literature in 2006: a Tower of Babel? Implement Sci 2010, 5:16. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“McKibbon et al. identified 100 different terms to describe KT research [3].”
§ Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies > Background
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3] McKibbon KA, Lokker C, Wilczynski NL, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Davis DE, Haynes RB, Straus S: A cross-sectional study of the number and frequency of terms used to refer to knowledge translation in a body of health literature in 2006: a Tower of Babel? Implement Sci 2010, 5:16. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whilst the diversity reflects their development in different contexts for different purposes, it potentially limits effective communication between research and implementation groups and risks introducing inefficiencies into efforts to interpret and accumulate evidence and to apply evidence to improvements in practice and policy.”
§ Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies > Background
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The first, using a process of consultation with expert panels, developed a definition of QI but was not successful in applying that definition to synthesize QI literature [27].”
§ Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies > Background > Methods to develop a framework
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27] Rubenstein LV, Hempel S, Farmer MM, Asch SM, Yano EM, Dougherty D, Shekelle PW: Finding order in heterogeneity: types of quality-improvement intervention publications. Qual Saf Health Care 2008, 17:403–408. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Active ingredients can be categorized broadly, as is done in the interventions and policy levels of the Behavior Change Wheel [21], or characterized at the level of specific strategies or techniques [24].”
§ Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies > Background > Meeting outcome – draft simplified model
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [21] Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R: The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci 2011, 6:42. source
- Not checked yetcites [24] Michie S, Richardson M, Johnston M, Abraham C, Francis JJ, Hardeman W, Eccles MP, Cane J, Wood CE: The Behavior Change Technique Taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically-clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Ann Beh Med 2013, 46:81–95. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This identifies nine functions by which interventions affect outcomes (e.g., education, persuasion, incentivisation).”
§ Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies > Background > Meeting outcome – draft simplified model
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [21] Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R: The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci 2011, 6:42. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While representation of the participants included QI, patient safety, public health, behaviour change, policy, information retrieval, and taxonomy, the group was limited to 12 participants.”
§ Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies > Background > Meeting outcome – draft simplified model
plainn = 12- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because the active ingredients concern generic psychological, organizational, and regulatory processes, a generically defined active ingredient can be delivered in a variety of applications or media.”
§ Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies > Background > Meeting outcome – draft simplified model
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is an iterative process whereby items are added or refined to ensure that all interventions can be described.”
§ Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies > Background > Meeting outcome – draft simplified model
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The relative importance of different causal mechanisms is influenced by a variety of contextual factors.”
§ Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies > Background > Meeting outcome – draft simplified model
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The framework categorizes interventions according to four elements that form the basis of the interventions and the specific terms used to describe them.”
- Also stated in: § Meeting outcome – draft simplified model · plain
“The four elements include intervention strategies and techniques (active ingredients), how they function (causal mechanisms), how they are delivered (mode of delivery), and what they aim to change (intended targets).”
§ Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies > Background > Meeting outcome – draft simplified model
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § Meeting outcome – draft simplified model · plain
In the paper
“Only then can the actual implementation of the policy or plan begin [31].”
§ Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies > Background > Meeting outcome – draft simplified model
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] Hendriks AM, Jansen MW, Gubbels JS, De Vries NK, Paulussen T, Kremers SP: Proposing a conceptual framework for integrated local public health policy, applied to childhood obesity - the behavior change ball. Implement Sci 2013, 8:46. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Some authors test and refine their taxonomy/model by selecting relevant research studies and categorizing the intervention according to the taxonomy (e.g., [33]).”
§ Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies > Background > Meeting outcome – draft simplified model
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33] Mazza D, Bairstow P, Buchan H, Chakraborty S, VanHecke O, Grech C, Kunnamo I: Refining a taxonomy for guideline implementation: results of an exercise in abstract classification. Implement Sci 2013, 8:32. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Recommendations for solving issues of terminology have included using expertise from taxonomic fields, standardizing vocabulary and definitions, and advocating the adoption of a small, common set of terms [3].”
§ Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies > Background > Meeting outcome – draft simplified model
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3] McKibbon KA, Lokker C, Wilczynski NL, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Davis DE, Haynes RB, Straus S: A cross-sectional study of the number and frequency of terms used to refer to knowledge translation in a body of health literature in 2006: a Tower of Babel? Implement Sci 2010, 5:16. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Intervention targets have been categorized as: change behavior of individuals; change coordinated behaviors among multiple staff; change policies, procedures, and technologies; increase organizational or system-level capacity or improve infrastructure; create or strengthen collaborative partnerships or coalitions; and change systems [32].”
§ Towards a common terminology: a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies > Background > Meeting outcome – draft simplified model
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [32] Scheirer MA: Linking sustainability research to intervention types. Am J Public Health 2013, 103:e73-e80. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“A number of reporting guidelines could be leveraged to improve descriptions of strategies (4, 96–100).”
From Enhancing the Impact of Implementation Strategies in Healthcare: A Research Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as [96]
Citations
Cites
Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C. (2009) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-50 · Cited by 14,496
Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-42 · Cited by 13,697
Self-citationDeveloping and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance
Craig, P., Dieppe, P., Macintyre, S., Michie, S., Nazareth, I., & Petticrew, M. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.a1655 · Cited by 10,995
Self-citationMichie, S., Richardson, M., Johnston, M., Abraham, C., Francis, J., Hardeman, W., Eccles, M. P., Cane, J., & Wood, C. E. (2013) · Annals of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12160-013-9486-6 · Cited by 7,629
Self-citationDiffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review and Recommendations
GREENHALGH, T., ROBERT, G., MACFARLANE, F., BATE, P., & KYRIAKIDOU, O. (2004) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.0887-378x.2004.00325.x · Cited by 7,448
Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes
Ivers, N., Jamtvedt, G., Flottorp, S., Young, J. M., Odgaard-Jensen, J., French, S. D., O'Brien, M. A., Johansen, M., Grimshaw, J., & Oxman, A. D. (2012) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000259.pub3 · Cited by 5,485
Self-citationCane, J., O’Connor, D., & Michie, S. (2012) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-37 · Cited by 4,888 · cited 2×
“A number of frameworks were developed to characterize different types of interventions; some described interventions to change individual behaviors [17,18], while others targeted change at the level of organizational systems and infrastructures and public policies [19-21].”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationMaking psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach
Michie, S. (2005) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2004.011155 · Cited by 3,440
Self-citationPlanning health promotion programs an intervention mapping approach
Bartholomew, L. K., Parcel, G. S., Kok, G., & Gottlieb, N. (2006) · Cited by 2,038
Bridging Research and Practice
Tabak, R. G., Khoong, E. C., Chambers, D. A., & Brownson, R. C. (2012) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05.024 · Cited by 1,386
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Stevens KR: ACE Star Model of EBP: Knowledge Transformation. The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio; 2004:1–3. [Academic Center for Evidence-based Practice] http://www.acestar.uthscsa.edu 2013
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research: About knowledge translation & commercialization. 2013. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/29418.html .
- McMaster Health Forum: Health Systems Evidence. 2013, 1–3. http://www.healthsystemsevidence.org/open-search.aspx . 2013
- Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group: EPOC resources for review authors. 2013, 1–3. http://epoc.cochrane.org/ . 2010
- Bartholomew LK, Parcel GS, Kok G, Gottlieb N: Planning Health Promotion Programs: Intervention Mapping. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2011.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Powell, B. J., Waltz, T. J., Chinman, M. J., Damschroder, L. J., Smith, J. L., Matthieu, M. M., Proctor, E. K., & Kirchner, J. E. (2015) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1 · Cited by 4,963
Traumatic brain injury: integrated approaches to improve prevention, clinical care, and research
Maas, A. I. R., Menon, D. K., Adelson, P. D., Andelic, N., Bell, M. J., Belli, A., Bragge, P., Brazinova, A., Büki, A., Chesnut, R. M., et al. (2017) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(17)30371-x · Cited by 2,609
Self-citationA taxonomy of behaviour change methods: an Intervention Mapping approach
Kok, G., Gottlieb, N. H., Peters, G.-J. Y., Mullen, P. D., Parcel, G. S., Ruiter, R. A. C., Fernández, M. E., Markham, C., & Bartholomew, L. K. (2016) · Health Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/17437199.2015.1077155 · Cited by 1,137
Self-citationWaltz, T. J., Powell, B. J., Matthieu, M. M., Damschroder, L. J., Chinman, M. J., Smith, J. L., Proctor, E. K., & Kirchner, J. E. (2015) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0295-0 · Cited by 1,108
Enhancing the Impact of Implementation Strategies in Healthcare: A Research Agenda
Powell, B. J., Fernandez, M. E., Williams, N. J., Aarons, G. A., Beidas, R. S., Lewis, C. C., McHugh, S. M., & Weiner, B. J. (2019) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2019.00003 · Cited by 775
Metadata
- Authors
- Colquhoun, H., Leeman, J., Michie, S., Lokker, C., Bragge, P., Hempel, S., McKibbon, K. A., Peters, G.-J. Y., Stevens, K. R., Wilson, M. G., & Grimshaw, J.
- Affiliations
- Ottawa Hospital (CA)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- University College London (GB)
- McMaster University (CA)
- The Alfred Hospital (AU)
- RAND Corporation (US)
- Open University of the Netherlands (NL)
- The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center (US)
- University of Ottawa (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Colquhoun, Heather
- ORCID
- Venue
- Implementation Science
- Published
- 2014-05-01
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 51-51
- ISSN
- 1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4021969
- OpenAlex
- W2139297527
- Semantic Scholar
- 06b62b3410e19d220ad4e47ef839ad2bdc707656
- Cited by
- 180
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 4
- FWCI
- 33.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2014-12-21)
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- uO Research (University of Ottawa) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
- Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- UNC Libraries
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research
- U.S. National Library of Medicine
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Keywords
- knowledge translation, terminology standardization, knowledge translation intervention, intervention framework, causal mechanisms, intervention strategies, mode of delivery, consensus framework, evidence integration, health policy, health care system
- MeSH terms
- Diffusion of Innovation, Humans, Terminology as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine, Translational Research, Biomedical, Policy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
