Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health experts including planners and policy-makers face complex decisions in diverse and constantly changing healthcare systems. Visual analytics may play a critical role in supporting analysis of complex healthcare data and decision-making. The purpose of this study was to examine the real-world experience that experts in mental healthcare planning have with visual analytics tools, investigate how well current visualisation techniques meet their needs, and suggest priorities for the future development of visual analytics tools of practical benefit to mental healthcare policy and decision-making.Methods: Health expert experience was assessed by an online exploratory survey consisting of a mix of multiple choice and open-ended questions. Health experts were sampled from an international pool of policy-makers, health agency directors, and researchers with extensive and direct experience of using visual analytics tools for complex mental healthcare systems planning. We invited them to the survey, and the experts' responses were analysed using statistical and text mining approaches.Results: The forty respondents who took part in the study recognised the complexity of healthcare systems data, but had most experience with and preference for relatively simple and familiar visualisations such as bar charts, scatter plots, and geographical maps. Sixty-five percent rated visual analytics as important to their field for evidence-informed decision-making processes. Fifty-five percent indicated that more advanced visual analytics tools were needed for their data analysis, and 67.5% stated their willingness to learn new tools. This was reflected in text mining and qualitative synthesis of open-ended responses.Conclusions: This exploratory research provides readers with the first self-report insight into expert experience with visual analytics in mental healthcare systems research and policy. In spite of the awareness of their importance for complex healthcare planning, the majority of experts use simple, readily available visualisation tools. We conclude that co-creation and co-development strategies will be required to support advanced visual analytics tools and skills, which will become essential in the future of healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]