Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Research article

Operationalizing the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to evaluate the collective impact of autonomous community programs that promote health and well-being

Authors: Robert B. Shaw, Shane N. Sweet, Christopher B. McBride, William K. Adair, Kathleen A. Martin Ginis

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework is a useful tool for evaluating the impact of programs in community settings. RE-AIM has been applied to evaluate individual programs but seldom used to evaluate the collective impact of community-based, public health programming developed and delivered by multiple autonomous organizations. The purposes of this paper were to (a) demonstrate how RE-AIM can be operationalized and applied to evaluate the collective impact of similar autonomous programs that promote health and well-being and (b) provide preliminary data on the collective impact of Canadian spinal cord injury (SCI) peer mentorship programs on the delivery of peer mentorship services.

Methods

Criteria from all five RE-AIM dimensions were operationalized to evaluate multiple similar community-based programs. For this study, nine provincial organizations that serve people with SCI were recruited from across Canada. Organizations completed a structured self-report questionnaire and participated in a qualitative telephone interview to examine different elements of their peer mentorship program. Data were analyzed using summary statistics.

Results

Having multiple indicators to assess RE-AIM dimensions provided a broad evaluation of the impact of Canadian SCI peer mentorship programs. Peer mentorship programs reached 1.63% of the estimated Canadian SCI population. The majority (67%) of organizations tracked the effectiveness of peer mentorship through testimonials and reports. Setting-level adoption rates were high with 100% of organizations offering peer mentorship in community and hospital settings. On average, organizations allocated 10.4% of their operating budget and 9.8% of their staff to implement peer mentorship and 89% had maintained their programming for over 10 years. Full interpretation of the collective impact of peer mentorship programs was limited as complete data were only collected for 52% of survey questions.

Conclusions

The lack of available organizational data highlights a significant challenge when using RE-AIM to evaluate the collective impact of multiple programs that promote health and well-being. Although researchers are encouraged to use RE-AIM to evaluate the collective impact of programs delivered by different organizations, documenting limitations and providing recommendations should be done to further the understanding of how best to operationalize RE-AIM in these contexts.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
World Health Organization. Noncommunicable diseases: progress monitor 2017.
2.
Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9):1322–7.CrossRef
3.
Gaglio B, Shoup JA, Glasgow RE. The RE-AIM framework: a systematic review of use over time. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(6):e38–46.CrossRef
4.
Glasgow RE, Estabrooks PE. Peer reviewed: Pragmatic applications of RE-AIM for health care initiatives in community and clinical settings. Prev Chronic Dis. 2018;15.
5.
6.
Glasgow RE, Klesges LM, Dzewaltowski DA, Estabrooks PA, Vogt TM. Evaluating the impact of health promotion programs: using the RE-AIM framework to form summary measures for decision making involving complex issues. Health Educ Res. 2006;21(5):688–94.CrossRef
7.
8.
Eakin EG, Bull SS, Riley K, Reeves MM, Gutierrez S, McLaughlin P. Recruitment and retention of Latinos in a primary care-based physical activity and diet trial: the resources for health study. Health Educ Res. 2006;22(3):361–71.CrossRef
9.
Glasgow RE, Gaglio B, France EK, Marcus A, Riley KM, Levinson A, Bischoff K. Do behavioral smoking reduction approaches reach more or different smokers? Two studies; similar answers. Addict Behav. 2006;31(3):509–18.CrossRef
10.
Toobert DJ, Strycker LA, Glasgow RE, Barrera M, Angell K. Effects of the Mediterranean lifestyle program on multiple risk behaviors and psychosocial outcomes among women at risk for heart disease. Ann Behav Med. 2005;29(2):128–37.CrossRef
11.
Tabak RG, Khoong EC, Chambers DA, Brownson RC. Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43(3):337–50.CrossRef
12.
Dunton GF, Lagloire R, Robertson T. Using the RE-AIM framework to evaluate the statewide dissemination of a school-based physical activity and nutrition curriculum: “exercise your options”. Am J Health Promot. 2009;23(4):229–32.CrossRef
13.
Kahwati LC, Lance TX, Jones KR, Kinsinger LS. RE-AIM evaluation of the veterans health Administration's MOVE! Weight management program. Transl Behav Med. 2011;1(4):551–60.CrossRef
14.
Glasgow RE, Whitlock EP, Eakin EG, Lichtenstein E. A brief smoking cessation intervention for women in low-income planned parenthood clinics. Am J Public Health. 2000;90(5):786–9.CrossRef
15.
Glasgow RE, McKay HG, Piette JD, Reynolds KD. The RE-AIM framework for evaluating interventions: what can it tell us about approaches to chronic illness management? Patient Educ Couns. 2001;44(2):119–27.CrossRef
16.
17.
Kessler RS, Purcell EP, Glasgow RE, Klesges LM, Benkeser RM, Peek CJ. What does it mean to “employ” the RE-AIM model? Eval Health Prof. 2013;36(1):44–66.CrossRef
18.
Burke SM, Shapiro S, Petrella RJ, Irwin JD, Jackman M, Pearson ES, et al. Using the RE-AIM framework to evaluate a community-based summer camp for children with obesity: a prospective feasibility study. BMC Obesity. 2015;2(1):21.CrossRef
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Houlihan BV, Brody M, Everhart-Skeels S, Pernigotti D, Burnett S, Zazula J, et al. Randomized trial of a peer-led, telephone-based empowerment intervention for persons with chronic spinal cord injury improves health self-management. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;98(6):1067–76.CrossRef
24.
Gassaway J, Jones ML, Sweatman WM, Hong M, Anziano P, DeVault K. Effects of peer mentoring on self-efficacy and hospital readmission after inpatient rehabilitation of individuals with spinal cord injury: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;98(8):1526–34.CrossRef
25.
Sweet SN, Noreau L, Leblond J, Martin Ginis KA. Peer support need fulfillment among adults with spinal cord injury: relationships with participation, life satisfaction and individual characteristics. Disabil Rehabil. 2016;38(6):558–65.CrossRef
26.
27.
28.
Noonan VK, Fingas M, Farry A, Baxter D, Singh A, Fehlings MG, et al. Incidence and prevalence of spinal cord injury in Canada: a national perspective. Neuroepidemiology. 2012;38(4):219–26.CrossRef
29.
Schwingel A, Gálvez P, Linares D, Sebastião E. Using a mixed-methods RE-AIM framework to evaluate community health programs for older Latinas. J Aging Health. 2017;29(4):551–93.CrossRef
30.
Estabrooks PA, Bradshaw M, Dzewaltowski DA, Smith-Ray RL. Determining the impact of walk Kansas: applying a team-building approach to community physical activity promotion. Ann Behav Med. 2008;36(1):1–12.CrossRef
31.
32.
Glasgow RE. What does it mean to be pragmatic? Pragmatic methods, measures, and models to facilitate research translation. Health Educ Behav. 2013;40(3):257–65.CrossRef
33.
34.
van den Berg-Emons RJ, Bussmann JB, Stam HJ. Accelerometry-based activity spectrum in persons with chronic physical conditions. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(12):1856–61.CrossRef
35.
Todd KR, Martin Ginis KA. Physical activity and spinal cord injury: lessons learned at the lowest end of the physical activity spectrum. Kinesiology Review. 2019;8(1):54–62.CrossRef
36.
Miller LE, Herbert WG. Health and economic benefits of physical activity for patients with spinal cord injury. ClinicoEcon Outcomes Res. 2016;8:551–8.CrossRef
37.
Chan BC, Nanwa N, Mittmann N, Bryant D, Coyte PC, Houghton PE. The average cost of pressure ulcer management in a community dwelling spinal cord injury population. Int Wound J. 2013;10(4):431–40.CrossRef
38.
Craven C, Verrier M, Balioussis C, Wolfe D, Hsieh J, Noonan V, et al. Rehabilitation environmental scan atlas: capturing capacity in Canadian SCI rehabilitation. Vancouver: Rick Hansen Institute; 2012.
39.
Divanoglou A, Georgiou M. Perceived effectiveness and mechanisms of community peer-based programmes for spinal cord injuries—a systematic review of qualitative findings. Spinal Cord. 2017;55(3):225–34.CrossRef
40.
Kanter B, Sherman A. The happy, healthy nonprofit: strategies for impact without burnout. New Jersey: Wiley; 2016.
41.
Bray I. Effective fundraising for nonprofits: real-world strategies that work. California: Nolo; 2016.
42.
Bowman W. The economic value of volunteers to nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Manag Leadersh. 2009;19(4):491–506.CrossRef
43.
Scott K. Funding matters: the impact of Canada's new funding regime on nonprofit and voluntary organizations. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Social Development; 2003.
Metadata
Title
Operationalizing the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to evaluate the collective impact of autonomous community programs that promote health and well-being
Authors
Robert B. Shaw
Shane N. Sweet
Christopher B. McBride
William K. Adair
Kathleen A. Martin Ginis
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7131-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Public Health 1/2019 Go to the issue

Research article

Menstrual hygiene management in rural schools of Zambia: a descriptive study of knowledge, experiences and challenges faced by schoolgirls

Research article

Effectiveness of various communication strategies for improving childhood pneumonia case management: a community based behavioral open labeled trial in rural Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Research article

The value of seroprevalence data as surveillance tool for Lyme borreliosis in the general population: the experience of Belgium

Research article

The prevalence of selected risk factors for non-communicable diseases in Hargeisa, Somaliland: a cross-sectional study

Study protocol

Improving access to community-based pulmonary rehabilitation: 3R protocol for real-world settings with cost-benefit analysis

Study protocol

“Workplace Physical Activity Program” (WOPAP) study protocol: a four-arm randomized controlled trial on preventing burnout and promoting vigor