What Does It Mean to “Employ” the RE-AIM Model?

Abstract

Many grant proposals identify the use of a given evaluation model or framework but offer little about how such models are implemented. The authors discuss what it means to employ a specific model, RE-AIM, and key dimensions from this model for program planning, implementation, evaluation, and reporting. The authors report both conceptual and content specifications for the use of the RE-AIM model and a content review of 42 recent dissemination and implementation grant applications to National Institutes of Health that proposed the use of this model. Outcomes include the extent to which proposals addressed the overall RE-AIM model and specific items within the five dimensions in their methods or evaluation plans. The majority of grants used only some elements of the model (less than 10% contained thorough measures across all RE-AIM dimensions). Few met criteria for "fully developed use" of RE-AIM and the percentage of key issues addressed varied from, on average, 45% to 78% across the RE-AIM dimensions. The results and discussion of key criteria should help investigators in their use of RE-AIM and illuminate the broader issue of comprehensive use of evaluation models.

The StrongWomen–Healthy Hearts program in Pennsylvania: RE-AIM analysis

“…components [5,6]. This study, specifically grounded in RE-AIM framework, sought to gain extensive information on best practices for the StrongWomenHealthy Hearts Program's in Pennsylvania to inform national dissemination so that the program would have maximal possible impact in reducing CVD burden.…”

Uptake of evidence-based physical activity programs: comparing perceptions of adopters and nonadopters

“…In reviewed manuscripts, the staff level adoption dimension was frequently reported only as the proportion of staff participating in an intervention and did not address the multiple factors that lead to adoption decision-making or the barriers faced by those who decided to not adopt. The review underscored the paucity of staff level reporting and further emphasized a need for more thorough examination of the decision-making of frontline staff with qualitative methodologies to begin to develop grounded theory in this area [31].…”

Network analysis of RE-AIM framework: chronology of the field and the connectivity of its contributors

“…The most frequent study designs employed were evaluation (43), randomized control trials (31), systematic reviews (14), prospective cohort designs (14), and literature reviews (12). Any other design employed were less than 7 in frequency.…”

“…The RE-AIM framework is rooted in translational science [7,8] because it encompasses the implementation activities across the domains of research, practice, application, and policy [9][10][11][12][13]. This is of significance to behavioral medicine as dissemination and adoption of evidence-based research takes on an average of 17 years from concept to translation into population-based interventions for the 14 % of the evidence that translates [14,15].…”

“…This is of significance to behavioral medicine as dissemination and adoption of evidence-based research takes on an average of 17 years from concept to translation into population-based interventions for the 14 % of the evidence that translates [14,15]. The RE-AIM framework mediates this lag to some degree by providing a sequentially planned context for research and evaluation activities, a range of activities and outcomes with which to predict, measure, and identify feasible program sustainability processes, and promotion of flexibility in research and evaluation activities to allow for practical application in real-world settings [12]. As use of the RE-AIM framework continues to grow and be implemented (www.re-aim.org), looking in detail at RE-AIM's impact on translational science and its collaborative authorship networks will help to guide the field to identify and fill gaps, as well as advance the field of translational research.…”