Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26547687›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2015

Fidelity to and comparative results across behavioral interventions evaluated through the RE-AIM framework: a systematic review.

Samantha M Harden, Bridget Gaglio, Jo Ann Shoup, Kimberlee A Kinney, Sallie Beth Johnson, Fabiana Brito, Kacie C A Blackman, Jamie M Zoellner, Jennie L Hill, Fabio A Almeida and 2 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudySystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07721090 (Pharmacological Management Optimization for Oral Mucosal Disorders), which is not on this map. Cited by 106 papers, 19 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
106citing papers in PubMed, 19 pooled it
–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.

NCT07721090 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Pharmacological Management Optimization for Oral Mucosal Disorders: A Clinical Pharmacist Led Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial With Implementation Science Evaluation

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of FujairahRan2026 to 2027Enrolled336ConditionsOral Lichen Planus, Recurrent Aphthous Stomatitis, Burning Mouth Syndrome, Oral CandidiasisArmsPharmacist-Led Prescribing Optimization and Patient Counselling
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

106 citing papers in PubMed, 19 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Behaviour change interventions to improve physical activity in adults: a systematic review of economic evaluations.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2024
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Rural physical activity interventions in the United States: a systematic review and RE-AIM evaluation.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2019
    Pooled it
  15. Understanding the impact of rural weight loss interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2019
    Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Trial

46 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

12 authors.

Samantha M HardenHuman Nutrition, Foods and Exercise, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24060, USA. harden.samantha@vt.edu.
Bridget GaglioCommunication and Dissemination Research, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Washington, DC, 20036, USA. bgaglio@pcori.org.
Jo Ann ShoupSchool of Public Affairs, University of Colorado, Denver, CO, 80204, USA. Jo.Ann.Shoup@kp.org.
Kimberlee A KinneyHuman Nutrition, Foods and Exercise, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24060, USA. skim13@vt.edu.
Sallie Beth JohnsonHuman Nutrition, Foods and Exercise, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24060, USA. sbjohnson@vt.edu.
Fabiana BritoHuman Nutrition, Foods and Exercise, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24060, USA. Fabiana@vt.edu.
Kacie C A BlackmanHuman Nutrition, Foods and Exercise, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24060, USA. kblackma@usc.edu.
Jamie M ZoellnerHuman Nutrition, Foods and Exercise, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24060, USA. Zoellner@vt.edu.
Jennie L HillHuman Nutrition, Foods and Exercise, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24060, USA. hilljl@vt.edu.
Fabio A AlmeidaHuman Nutrition, Foods and Exercise, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24060, USA. falmeida@vt.edu.
Russell E GlasgowFamily Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. Russell.Glasgow@ucdenver.edu.
Paul A EstabrooksHuman Nutrition, Foods and Exercise, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24060, USA. estabrkp@vt.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was developed to determine potential public health impact of interventions (i.e., programs, policy, and practice). The purpose of this systematic review was to determine (1) comparative results across accurately reported RE-AIM indicators, (2) relevant information when there remains under-reporting or misclassification of data across each dimension, (3) the degree to which authors intervened to improve outcomes related to each dimension, and (4) the number of articles reporting RE-AIM dimensions for a given study.

methodsIn April 2013, a systematic search of the RE-AIM framework was completed in PubMed, PSYCHInfo, EbscoHost, Web of Science, and Scopus. Evidence was analyzed until January 2015.

resultsEighty-two interventions that included empirical data related to at least one of the RE-AIM dimensions were included in the review. Across these interventions, they reached a median sample size of 320 participants (M = 4894 ± 28,256). Summarizing the effectiveness indicators, we found that: the average participation rate was 45 % (±28 %), 89 % of the interventions reported positive changes in the primary outcome and 11 interventions reported broader outcomes (e.g., quality of life). As for individual-level maintenance, 11 % of studies showed effects ≥6 months post-program. Average setting and staff adoption rates were 75 % (±32 %) and 79 % (±28 %), respectively. Interventions reported being delivered as intended (82 % (±16 %)) and 22 % intervention reported adaptations to delivery. There were insufficient data to determine average maintenance at the organizational level. Data on costs associated with each dimension were infrequent and disparate: four studies reported costs of recruitment, two reported intervention costs per participant, and two reported adoption costs.

conclusionsThe RE-AIM framework has been employed in a variety of populations and settings for the planning, delivery, and evaluation of behavioral interventions. This review highlights inconsistencies in the degree to which authors reported each dimension in its entirety as well as inaccuracies in reporting indicators within each dimension. Further, there are few interventions that aim to improve outcomes related to reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorHealth PromotionHumansProgram EvaluationPublic Health PracticeResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID26547687
PMCPMC4637141

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.