Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25964897›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2014

Perceived Utility of the RE-AIM Framework for Health Promotion/Disease Prevention Initiatives for Older Adults: A Case Study from the U.S. Evidence-Based Disease Prevention Initiative.

Marcia G Ory, Mary Altpeter, Basia Belza, Janet Helduser, Chen Zhang, Matthew Lee Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Implementation and evolution of a regional chronic disease self-management program.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2016
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Marcia G OryDepartment of Health Promotion and Community Health Sciences, School of Public Health, Texas A&M Health Science Center , College Station, TX , USA.
Mary AltpeterCenter for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill , Chapel Hill, NC , USA.
Basia BelzaHealth Promotion Research Center, School of Nursing and School of Public Health, University of Washington , Seattle, WA , USA.
Janet HelduserDepartment of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Texas A&M Health Science Center , College Station, TX , USA.
Chen ZhangEmory Global Health Institute, Emory University , Atlanta, GA , USA.
Matthew Lee SmithDepartment of Health Promotion and Behavior, College of Public Health, The University of Georgia , Athens, GA , USA.

Funding

NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP000059NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP001911NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP001924
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dissemination and implementation (D&I) frameworks are increasingly being promoted in public health research. However, less is known about their uptake in the field, especially for diverse sets of programs. Limited questionnaires exist to assess the ways that frameworks can be utilized in program planning and evaluation. We present a case study from the United States that describes the implementation of the RE-AIM framework by state aging services providers and public health partners and a questionnaire that can be used to assess the utility of such frameworks in practice. An online questionnaire was developed to capture community perspectives about the utility of the RE-AIM framework. Distributed to project leads in 27 funded states in an evidence-based disease prevention initiative for older adults, 40 key stakeholders responded representing a 100% state-participation rate among the 27 funded states. Findings suggest that there is perceived utility in using the RE-AIM framework when evaluating grand-scale initiatives for older adults. The RE-AIM framework was seen as useful for planning, implementation, and evaluation with relevance for evaluators, providers, community leaders, and policy makers. Yet, the uptake was not universal, and some respondents reported difficulties in use, especially adopting the framework as a whole. This questionnaire can serve as the basis to assess ways the RE-AIM framework can be utilized by practitioners in state-wide D&I efforts. Maximal benefit can be derived from examining the assessment of RE-AIM-related knowledge and confidence as part of a continual quality assurance process. We recommend such an assessment be performed before the implementation of new funding initiatives and throughout their course to assess RE-AIM uptake and to identify areas for technical assistance.

Indexed as

agingolder adultsprogram evaluationprogram implementationprogram planningRE-AIM

Identifiers

PMID25964897
PMCPMC4410418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.