Browsing by Author "Gaglio, Bridget"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Fidelity to and comparative results across behavioral interventions evaluated through the RE-AIM framework: a systematic review
    Harden, Samantha M.; Gaglio, Bridget; Shoup, Jo A.; Kinney, Kimberlee A.; Johnson, Sallie B.; Brito, Fabiana A.; Blackman, Kacie C. A.; Zoellner, Jamie M.; Hill, Jennie L.; Almeida, Fabio A.; Glasgow, Russell E.; Estabrooks, Paul A. (2015-11-08)
    Background The 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. Methods In 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. Results Eighty-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. Conclusions The 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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    National Working Group on the RE-AIM Planning and Evaluation Framework: Goals, Resources, and Future Directions
    Harden, Samantha M.; Strayer, Thomas Edward, III; Smith, Matthew Lee; Gaglio, Bridget; Ory, Marcia G.; Rabin, Borsika A.; Estabrooks, Paul A.; Glasgow, Russell E. (2020-01-10)
    The National Working Group on RE-AIM Planning and Evaluation Framework (herein Workgroup) was established in 2004 to support the application of the framework and advance dissemination and implementation science (D&I). Workgroup members developed and disseminated products and resources (and continue to do so) to advocate for consistent application of RE-AIM and allow for cross study comparisons. The purpose of this paper is to summarize key Workgroup activities, products, and services (e.g., webinars, consultations, planning tools) and enhance bidirectional communication between the Workgroup and RE-AIM users. The ultimate goal of this work is to serve as a forum for dissemination to improve the balance between RE-AIM user demand (needs) and the currently limited RE-AIM Workgroup supply (consultation and resources) to demonstrate and expand the utility of RE-AIM as a D&I planning and evaluation framework. A summary of resources is provided as well as specific examples of how the Workgroup has been responsive to user needs.
  • Thumbnail Image
    RE-AIM Planning and Evaluation Framework: Adapting to New Science and Practice With a 20-Year Review
    Glasgow, Russell E.; Harden, Samantha M.; Gaglio, Bridget; Rabin, Borsika A.; Smith, Matthew Lee; Porter, Gwenndolyn C.; Ory, Marcia G.; Estabrooks, Paul A. (Frontiers, 2019-03-29)
    The RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework was conceptualized two decades ago. As one of the most frequently applied implementation frameworks, RE-AIM has now been cited in over 2,800 publications. This paper describes the application and evolution of RE-AIM as well as lessons learned from its use. RE-AIM has been applied most often in public health and health behavior change research, but increasingly in more diverse content areas and within clinical, community, and corporate settings. We discuss challenges of using RE-AIM while encouraging a more pragmatic use of key dimensions rather than comprehensive applications of all elements. Current foci of RE-AIM include increasing the emphasis on cost and adaptations to programs and expanding the use of qualitative methods to understand “how” and “why” results came about. The framework will continue to evolve to focus on contextual and explanatory factors related to RE-AIM outcomes, package RE-AIM for use by non-researchers, and integrate RE-AIM with other pragmatic and reporting frameworks.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Understanding and applying the RE-AIM framework: Clarifications and resources
    Holtrop, Jodi Summers; Estabrooks, Paul A.; Gaglio, Bridget; Harden, Samantha M.; Kessler, Rodger S.; King, Diane K.; Kwan, Bethany M.; Ory, Marcia G.; Rabin, Borsika A.; Shelton, Rachel C.; Glasgow, Russell E. (2021-05-14)
    Introduction: Understanding, categorizing, and using implementation science theories, models, and frameworks is a complex undertaking. The issues involved are even more challenging given the large number of frameworks and that some of them evolve significantly over time. As a consequence, researchers and practitioners may be unintentionally mischaracterizing frameworks or basing actions and conclusions on outdated versions of a framework. Methods: This paper addresses how the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework has been described, summarizes how the model has evolved over time, and identifies and corrects several misconceptions. Results: We address 13 specific areas where misconceptions have been noted concerning the use of RE-AIM and summarize current guidance on these issues. We also discuss key changes to RE-AIM over the past 20 years, including the evolution to Pragmatic Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model, and provide resources for potential users to guide application of the framework. Conclusions: RE-AIM and many other theories and frameworks have evolved, been misunderstood, and sometimes been misapplied. To some degree, this is inevitable, but we conclude by suggesting some actions that reviewers, framework developers, and those selecting or applying frameworks can do to prevent or alleviate these problems.