TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluating the Application of the RE-AIM Planning and Evaluation Framework
T2 - An Updated Systematic Review and Exploration of Pragmatic Application
AU - D'Lima, Danielle
AU - Soukup, Tayana
AU - Hull, Louise
N1 - Funding Information:
LH, King?s College London, is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration South London (NIHR ARC South London) at King?s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. LH is a member of King?s Improvement Science, which offers co-funding to theNIHR ARC South London and comprises a specialist team of improvement scientists and senior researchers based at King?s College London. Its work is funded by King?s Health Partners (Guy?s and St Thomas? NHS Foundation Trust, King?s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, King?s College London and South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust), Guy?s and St Thomas? Charity, and theMaudsley Charity. The views expressed are those of the author[s] and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funders were not involved in the design, conduct or reporting of the study. TS research was supported by the Wellcome Trust (grant number 219425/Z/19/Z) and Diabetes UK (grant number 19/0006055).
Funding Information:
The challenges of applying the RE-AIM framework in its entirety have also been highlighted and discussed (13, 25). Its developers recognize that assessment of all RE-AIM dimensions may not be feasible, especially outside the context of research projects with substantial funding (13). Hence, the developers have suggested that more pragmatic applications of RE-AIM (i.e., partial application of the framework) may be warranted (13). Fully applying RE-AIM may not be necessary or appropriate for all studies, with the developers encouraging users to identify and assess the RE-AIM dimensions that are ‘most valued and appropriate for their particular question, setting, stakeholders, and stage of research’ (13). This focus is supported by ‘simplified, pragmatic, user-centered, and stakeholder-centered’ recommendations to increase RE-AIM use (26).
Funding Information:
LH, King’s College London, is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration South London (NIHR ARC South London) at King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. LH is a member of King’s Improvement Science, which offers co-funding to the NIHR ARC South London and comprises a specialist team of improvement scientists and senior researchers based at King’s College London. Its work is funded by King’s Health Partners (Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, King’s College London and South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust), Guy’s and St Thomas’ Charity, and the Maudsley Charity. The views expressed are those of the author[s] and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funders were not involved in the design, conduct or reporting of the study. TS research was supported by the Wellcome Trust (grant number 219425/Z/19/Z) and Diabetes UK (grant number 19/0006055).
Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2022 D'Lima, Soukup and Hull.
PY - 2022/1/26
Y1 - 2022/1/26
N2 - Background: RE-AIM is one of the most widely applied frameworks to plan and evaluate the implementation of public health and health behavior change interventions. The objective of this review is to provide an updated synthesis of use of the RE-AIM (Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation and Maintenance) planning and evaluation framework and explore pragmatic use (i.e., partial application of the framework) and how this is reported. Methods: Systematic review. MEDLINE (R) and PsycINFO were searched, via the Ovid interface, between January 2011 and December 2017. Studies that applied RE-AIM as a planning and/or evaluation framework were included. Results: One hundred fifty-seven articles met inclusion criteria. One hundred forty-nine reported using RE-AIM for evaluation, three for planning and five for planning and evaluation. Reach was the most frequently reported dimension (92.9%), followed by implementation (90.3%), adoption (89.7%), effectiveness (84.5%), and maintenance (77.4%). One hundred forty-seven/one hundred fifty-seven articles originated from high-income economy countries. Within a sub-set analysis (10% of included articles), 9/15 articles evaluated all dimensions. Of the 6/15 articles that did not evaluate all dimensions, five provided no justification for pragmatic application. Conclusions: RE-AIM has gained increased use in recent years and there is evidence that it is being applied pragmatically. However, the rationale for pragmatic use is often not reported. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42017054616).
AB - Background: RE-AIM is one of the most widely applied frameworks to plan and evaluate the implementation of public health and health behavior change interventions. The objective of this review is to provide an updated synthesis of use of the RE-AIM (Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation and Maintenance) planning and evaluation framework and explore pragmatic use (i.e., partial application of the framework) and how this is reported. Methods: Systematic review. MEDLINE (R) and PsycINFO were searched, via the Ovid interface, between January 2011 and December 2017. Studies that applied RE-AIM as a planning and/or evaluation framework were included. Results: One hundred fifty-seven articles met inclusion criteria. One hundred forty-nine reported using RE-AIM for evaluation, three for planning and five for planning and evaluation. Reach was the most frequently reported dimension (92.9%), followed by implementation (90.3%), adoption (89.7%), effectiveness (84.5%), and maintenance (77.4%). One hundred forty-seven/one hundred fifty-seven articles originated from high-income economy countries. Within a sub-set analysis (10% of included articles), 9/15 articles evaluated all dimensions. Of the 6/15 articles that did not evaluate all dimensions, five provided no justification for pragmatic application. Conclusions: RE-AIM has gained increased use in recent years and there is evidence that it is being applied pragmatically. However, the rationale for pragmatic use is often not reported. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42017054616).
KW - evaluation frameworks
KW - implementation frameworks
KW - implementation models
KW - implementation theories
KW - planning frameworks
KW - RE-AIM framework
KW - systematic review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85124387859&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3389/fpubh.2021.755738
DO - 10.3389/fpubh.2021.755738
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85124387859
SN - 2296-2565
VL - 9
JO - Frontiers in Public Health
JF - Frontiers in Public Health
M1 - 755738
ER -