86
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      RE-AIM Planning and Evaluation Framework: Adapting to New Science and Practice With a 20-Year Review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework was conceptualized two decades ago. As one of the most frequently applied implementation frameworks, RE-AIM has now been cited in over 2,800 publications. This paper describes the application and evolution of RE-AIM as well as lessons learned from its use. RE-AIM has been applied most often in public health and health behavior change research, but increasingly in more diverse content areas and within clinical, community, and corporate settings. We discuss challenges of using RE-AIM while encouraging a more pragmatic use of key dimensions rather than comprehensive applications of all elements. Current foci of RE-AIM include increasing the emphasis on cost and adaptations to programs and expanding the use of qualitative methods to understand “how” and “why” results came about. The framework will continue to evolve to focus on contextual and explanatory factors related to RE-AIM outcomes, package RE-AIM for use by non-researchers, and integrate RE-AIM with other pragmatic and reporting frameworks.

          Related collections

          Most cited references93

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda

          An unresolved issue in the field of implementation research is how to conceptualize and evaluate successful implementation. This paper advances the concept of “implementation outcomes” distinct from service system and clinical treatment outcomes. This paper proposes a heuristic, working “taxonomy” of eight conceptually distinct implementation outcomes—acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability—along with their nominal definitions. We propose a two-pronged agenda for research on implementation outcomes. Conceptualizing and measuring implementation outcomes will advance understanding of implementation processes, enhance efficiency in implementation research, and pave the way for studies of the comparative effectiveness of implementation strategies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting

              Implementation strategies have unparalleled importance in implementation science, as they constitute the ‘how to’ component of changing healthcare practice. Yet, implementation researchers and other stakeholders are not able to fully utilize the findings of studies focusing on implementation strategies because they are often inconsistently labelled and poorly described, are rarely justified theoretically, lack operational definitions or manuals to guide their use, and are part of ‘packaged’ approaches whose specific elements are poorly understood. We address the challenges of specifying and reporting implementation strategies encountered by researchers who design, conduct, and report research on implementation strategies. Specifically, we propose guidelines for naming, defining, and operationalizing implementation strategies in terms of seven dimensions: actor, the action, action targets, temporality, dose, implementation outcomes addressed, and theoretical justification. Ultimately, implementation strategies cannot be used in practice or tested in research without a full description of their components and how they should be used. As with all intervention research, their descriptions must be precise enough to enable measurement and ‘reproducibility.’ We propose these recommendations to improve the reporting of implementation strategies in research studies and to stimulate further identification of elements pertinent to implementation strategies that should be included in reporting guidelines for implementation strategies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Public Health
                Front Public Health
                Front. Public Health
                Frontiers in Public Health
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-2565
                29 March 2019
                2019
                : 7
                : 64
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Dissemination and Implementation Science Program of ACCORDS, Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Colorado , Aurora, CO, United States
                [2] 2Physical Activity Research and Community Implementation, Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise, Virginia Tech , Blacksburg, VA, United States
                [3] 3Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute , Washington, DC, United States
                [4] 4Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, School of Medicine, University of California , San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States
                [5] 5Center for Population Health and Aging, Texas A&M University , College Station, TX, United States
                [6] 6Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Public Health, Texas A&M University , College Station, TX, United States
                [7] 7Department of Health Promotion and Behavior, College of Public Health, The University of Georgia , Athens, GA, United States
                [8] 8Department of Health Promotion, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center , Omaha, NE, United States
                Author notes

                Edited by: Dan J. Graham, Colorado State University, United States

                Reviewed by: Melissa Bopp, Pennsylvania State University, United States; Deborah Paone, Independent Researcher, United States

                *Correspondence: Russell E. Glasgow russell.glasgow@ 123456ucdenver.edu

                This article was submitted to Public Health Education and Promotion, a section of the journal Frontiers in Public Health

                Article
                10.3389/fpubh.2019.00064
                6450067
                30984733
                bba047f1-174b-4c77-9ab7-1ffa362e3b8d
                Copyright © 2019 Glasgow, Harden, Gaglio, Rabin, Smith, Porter, Ory and Estabrooks.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 09 January 2019
                : 05 March 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 1, Equations: 0, References: 90, Pages: 9, Words: 7513
                Categories
                Public Health
                Mini Review

                re-aim,evaluation,external validity,dissemination,implementation

                Comments

                Comment on this article