CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 80Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationClinical practice guidelines implementation

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

Open access
The AIMD Writing/Working Group, Bragge, Peter, Grimshaw, Jeremy M., Lokker, Cynthia, Colquhoun, Heather·2017·BMC Medical Research Methodology
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0314-8PMC PMC5336675
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Proliferation 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]. METHODS: Framework 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. RESULTS: There 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? CONCLUSIONS: The 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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12874-017-0314-8

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [3]Tabak RG Khoong EC Chambers DA Brownson RC Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research Am J Prev Med 2012 43 3 337 350 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05.024 22898128 PMC3592983 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [22]Ioannidis JP Lau J Evidence on interventions to reduce medical errors: an overview and recommendations for future research J Gen Intern Med 2001 16 5 325 334 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.00714.x 11359552 PMC1495210 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
The AIMD Writing/Working Group, Bragge, P., Grimshaw, J. M., Lokker, C., & Colquhoun, H.
Affiliations
  • Monash University (AU)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Bragge, Peter
ORCID
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-03-04
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
38-38
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12874-017-0314-8
PMC
PMC5336675
OpenAlex
W2593623602
Cited by
80
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1
FWCI
6.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, public-domain)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • uO Research (University of Ottawa) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (FRN#88368)
  • KT Canada
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
evidence-based practice, evidence integration, intervention framework, causal mechanisms, intervention delivery, terminology validation, reporting guidelines, health policy, knowledge translation
MeSH terms
Communication, Cooperative Behavior, Health Policy, Humans, Quality of Health Care, Qualitative Research

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.

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