SynthesisBMC health services research2023
Optimising the implementation of digital-supported interventions for the secondary prevention of heart disease: a systematic review using the RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework.
Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current nursing and midwifery contribution to leading digital health policy and practice: An integrative review.Journal of advanced nursing · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness of an Online Health Education Program for Pediatric Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms.Urology · 2025Trial
- Harnessing Artificial Intelligence in Health Research in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries: Potential and Caution.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2026Review
- De-implementation of unnecessary antibiotic use for upper respiratory tract infections in ambulatory HIV care in Mozambique: a two-arm parallel cluster-randomized controlled hybrid type II trial.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Enhancing Psychological Health and Weight-Related Behaviors in Older Adults Through Digital Interventions: Findings from theClinical gerontologist · 2026Article
- Evaluating a Website on Learning Disorders for Parents and Learning Therapists: Observational Mixed Methods Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Observational
- Effects of a digitally enabled cardiac rehabilitation intervention on risk factors, recurrent hospitalization and mortality.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025Article
- Implementation outcomes of tuberculosis digital adherence technologies: a scoping review using the RE-AIM framework.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- Barriers and facilitators to high-volume evidence-based innovation and implementation in a large, community-based learning health system.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- A rapid review protocol of physiotherapy and occupational therapy telerehabilitation to inform ethical and equity concerns.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundmHealth technologies are now widely utilised to support the delivery of secondary prevention programs in heart disease. Interventions with mHealth included have shown a similar efficacy and safety to conventional programs with improvements in access and adherence. However, questions remain regarding the successful wider implementation of digital-supported programs. By applying the Reach-Effectiveness-Adoption-Implementation-Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to a systematic review and meta-analysis, this review aims to evaluate the extent to which these programs report on RE-AIM dimensions and associated indicators.
methodsThis review extends our previous systematic review and meta-analysis that investigated the effectiveness of digital-supported programs for patients with coronary artery disease. Citation searches were performed on the 27 studies of the systematic review to identify linked publications that reported data for RE-AIM dimensions. All included studies and, where relevant, any additional publications, were coded using an adapted RE-AIM extraction tool. Discrepant codes were discussed amongst reviewers to gain consensus. Data were analysed to assess reporting on indicators related to each of the RE-AIM dimensions, and average overall reporting rates for each dimension were calculated.
resultsSearches found an additional nine publications. Across 36 publications that were linked to the 27 studies, 24 (89%) of the studies were interventions solely delivered at home. The average reporting rates for RE-AIM dimensions were highest for effectiveness (75%) and reach (67%), followed by adoption (54%), implementation (36%) and maintenance (11%). Eleven (46%) studies did not describe relevant characteristics of their participants or of staff involved in the intervention; most studies did not describe unanticipated consequences of the intervention; the ongoing cost of intervention implementation and maintenance; information on intervention fidelity; long-term follow-up outcomes, or program adaptation in other settings.
conclusionsThrough the application of the RE-AIM framework to a systematic review we found most studies failed to report on key indicators. Failing to report these indicators inhibits the ability to address the enablers and barriers required to achieve optimal intervention implementation in wider settings and populations. Future studies should consider alternative hybrid trial designs to enable reporting of implementation indicators to improve the translation of research evidence into routine practice, with special consideration given to the long-term sustainability of program effects as well as corresponding ongoing costs. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO-CRD42022343030.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.