Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38590731›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in health services2024

Adopting the RE-AIM analytic framework for rural program evaluation: experiences from the Advance Care Planning via Group Visits (ACP-GV) national evaluation.

Monica M Matthieu, Laura D Taylor, David A Adkins, J Silas Williams, Bo Hu, Ciara M Oliver, Jane Ann McCullough, Mary J Mallory, Ian D Smith, Jacob T Painter and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in health services, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

12 authors.

Monica M MatthieuU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, HSR&D Center of Innovation: Center for Mental Healthcare & Outcomes Research, Little Rock, AR, United States.
Laura D TaylorU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center, Little Rock, AR, United States.
David A AdkinsU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, HSR&D Center of Innovation: Center for Mental Healthcare & Outcomes Research, Little Rock, AR, United States.
J Silas WilliamsU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, HSR&D Center of Innovation: Center for Mental Healthcare & Outcomes Research, Little Rock, AR, United States.
Bo HuU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, HSR&D Center of Innovation: Center for Mental Healthcare & Outcomes Research, Little Rock, AR, United States.
Ciara M OliverU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, HSR&D Center of Innovation: Center for Mental Healthcare & Outcomes Research, Little Rock, AR, United States.
Jane Ann McCulloughU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center, Little Rock, AR, United States.
Mary J MalloryU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center, Little Rock, AR, United States.
Ian D SmithU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, HSR&D Center of Innovation: Center for Mental Healthcare & Outcomes Research, Little Rock, AR, United States.
Jacob T PainterU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, HSR&D Center of Innovation: Center for Mental Healthcare & Outcomes Research, Little Rock, AR, United States.
Songthip T OunpraseuthDepartment of Biostatistics, Fay W. Boozman College of Public Health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States.
Kimberly K GarnerU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center, Little Rock, AR, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: To support rigorous evaluation across a national portfolio of grants, the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Rural Health (ORH) adopted an analytic framework to guide their grantees' evaluation of initiatives that reach rural veterans and to standardize the reporting of outcomes and impacts. Advance Care Planning via Group Visits (ACP-GV), one of ORH's Enterprise-Wide Initiatives, also followed the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. ACP-GV is a national patient-centered intervention delivered in a large, veterans integrated healthcare system. This manuscript describes how RE-AIM was used to evaluate this national program and lessons learned from ORH's annual reporting feedback to ACP-GV on their use of the framework to describe evaluation impacts. Methods: We used patient, provider, and site-level administrative health care data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse and national program management databases for federal fiscal years (FY) spanning October 1, 2018-September 30, 2023. Measures included cumulative and past FY metrics developed to assess program impacts. Results: RE-AIM constructs included the following cumulative and annual program evaluation results. ACP-GV reached 54,167 unique veterans, including 19,032 unique rural veterans between FY 2018 to FY 2023. During FY 2023, implementation adherence to the ACP-GV model was noted in 91.7% of program completers, with 55% of these completers reporting a knowledge increase and 14% reporting a substantial knowledge increase (effectiveness). As of FY 2023, 66 ACP-GV sites were active, and 1,556 VA staff were trained in the intervention (adoption). Of the 66 active sites in FY 2023, 27 were sites previously funded by ORH and continued to offer ACP-GV after the conclusion of three years of seed funding (maintenance). Discussion: Lessons learned developing RE-AIM metrics collaboratively with program developers, implementers, and evaluators allowed for a balance of clinical and scientific input in decision-making, while the ORH annual reporting feedback provided specificity and emphasis for including both cumulative, annual, and rural specific metrics. ACP-GV's use of RE-AIM metrics is a key step towards improving rural veteran health outcomes and describing real world program impacts.

Indexed as

advance care planningadvance directiveimplementation scienceRE-AIM frameworkUnited States Department of Veterans Affairsveteran

Identifiers

PMID38590731
PMCPMC10999534

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.