Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36925843›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in health services2022

Use of the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to guide iterative adaptations: Applications, lessons learned, and future directions.

Russell E Glasgow, Catherine Battaglia, Marina McCreight, Roman Ayele, Anna M Maw, Meredith P Fort, Jodi Summers Holtrop, Rebekah N Gomes, Borsika Adrienn Rabin

Open access · diamondFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in health services, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
19.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Utility of the Vocational Fit Assessment and VocFit Data Reports: A Mixed-Methods Study.Career development and transition for exceptional individuals · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Russell E GlasgowColorado Implementation Science Center for Cancer Control, Dissemination and Implementation Science Program, Adult and Child Center for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, United States.
Catherine BattagliaDenver/Seattle Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care, Department of Veteran Affairs, VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, United States.
Marina McCreightDenver/Seattle Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care, Department of Veteran Affairs, VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, United States.
Roman AyeleDenver/Seattle Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care, Department of Veteran Affairs, VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, United States.
Anna M MawDivision of Hospital Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, United States.
Meredith P FortColorado Implementation Science Center for Cancer Control, Dissemination and Implementation Science Program, Adult and Child Center for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, United States.
Jodi Summers HoltropColorado Implementation Science Center for Cancer Control, Dissemination and Implementation Science Program, Adult and Child Center for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, United States.
Rebekah N GomesColorado Implementation Science Center for Cancer Control, Dissemination and Implementation Science Program, Adult and Child Center for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, United States.
Borsika Adrienn RabinColorado Implementation Science Center for Cancer Control, Dissemination and Implementation Science Program, Adult and Child Center for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, United States.
University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus · USVA Eastern Colorado Health Care System · USColorado School of Public Health · US

Funding

Pragmatic Implementation Science Approaches to Assess and Enhance Value of Cancer Prevention and Control in Rural Primary CareP50CA244688 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI GLASGOW, RUSSELL E · 2019 to 2023
$4.9M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA244688
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Implementation science frameworks have been used widely for planning and evaluation, but seldom to guide adaptations during program implementation. There is great potential for these frameworks to be used to inform conceptual and data-driven decisions about adaptations. Methods: We summarize recent applications using Iterative RE-AIM to capture and guide adaptations. Iterative RE-AIM can be repeated at multiple time points customized to each project and involves the following activities: identification of key implementation partners; rating importance of and progress on each RE-AIM dimension (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance); use of summary data on ratings to identify one or two RE-AIM dimensions for adaptations and implementation strategies; and evaluation of progress and impact of adaptations. We summarize recent and ongoing Iterative RE-AIM applications across multiple care coordination and pain management projects within the Veterans Health Administration, a hypertension control trial in Guatemala, a hospital-based lung ultrasound implementation pilot, and a colorectal cancer screening program in underserved communities. Results: Iterative RE-AIM appears feasible, helpful, and broadly applicable across diverse health care issues, interventions, contexts, and populations. In general, the RE-AIM dimension showing the largest gap between importance and progress has been Reach. The dimensions most frequently selected for improvement have been Reach and Implementation. We discuss commonalities, differences and lessons learned across these various applications of Iterative RE-AIM. Challenges include having objective real time data on which to make decisions, having key implementation staff available for all assessments, and rapidly scoring and providing actionable feedback. We discuss print and online resources and materials to support Iterative RE-AIM. Conclusions: The use of Iterative RE-AIM to guide and support understanding of adaptations has proven feasible across diverse projects and in multiple case studies, but there are still questions about its strengths, limitations, essential components, efficiency, comparative effectiveness, and delivery details. Future directions include investigating the optimal frequency and timing for iterative applications; adding contextual assessments; developing more continuous and rapid data on which to make adaptation decisions; identifying opportunities to enhance health equity; and determining the level of facilitation that is most cost-effective.

Indexed as

adaptationaudit and feedbackimplementation strategyIterative RE-AIMpartner engagementPRISMrapid research

Identifiers

PMID36925843
PMCPMC10012751
OpenAlexW4306684278

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
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.