Although the field of health promotion has made substantial progress,1-13 our advances are limited by the evaluation methods used. We have the potential to assess the populationbased impact of our programs. However, with few exceptions, evaluations have restricted their focus to 1 or 2 of 5 "dimensions of quality" we believe to be important.There

Results from 7 studies and a revised scale O R I G I N A L A R T I C L EOBJECTIVE -To review reliability, validity, and normative data from 7 different studies, involving a total of 1,988 people with diabetes, and provide a revised version of the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities (SDSCA) measure. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS -The SDSCA measure is a brief self-report questionnaire of diabetes self-management that includes items assessing the following aspects of the diabetes regimen: general diet, specific diet, exercise, blood-glucose testing, foot care, and smoking. Normative data (means and SD), inter-item and test-retest reliability, correlations between the SDSCA subscales and a range of criterion measures, and sensitivity to change scores are presented for the 7 different studies (5 randomized interventions and 2 observational studies).RESULTS -Participants were typically older patients, having type 2 diabetes for a number of years, with a slight preponderance of women. The average inter-item correlations within scales were high (mean = 0.47), with the exception of specific diet; test-retest correlations were moderate (mean = 0.40). Correlations with other measures of diet and exercise generally supported the validity of the SDSCA subscales (mean = 0.23).CONCLUSIONS -There are numerous benefits from standardization of measures across studies. The SDSCA questionnaire is a brief yet reliable and valid self-report measure of diabetes self-management that is useful both for research and practice. The revised version and its scoring are presented, and the inclusion of this measure in studies of diabetes self-management is recommended when appropriate. Diabetes Care 23:943-950, 2000

The gap between research and practice is well documented. We address one of the underlying reasons for this gap: the assumption that effectiveness research naturally and logically follows from successful efficacy research. These 2 research traditions have evolved different methods and values; consequently, there are inherent differences between the characteristics of a successful efficacy intervention versus those of an effectiveness one. Moderating factors that limit robustness across settings, populations, and intervention staff need to be addressed in efficacy studies, as well as in effectiveness trials. Greater attention needs to be paid to documenting intervention reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance. Recommendations are offered to help close the gap between efficacy and effectiveness research and to guide evaluation and possible adoption of new programs.

BackgroundDespite growth in implementation research, limited scientific attention has focused on understanding and improving sustainability of health interventions. Models of sustainability have been evolving to reflect challenges in the fit between intervention and context.DiscussionWe examine the development of concepts of sustainability, and respond to two frequent assumptions —'voltage drop,’ whereby interventions are expected to yield lower benefits as they move from efficacy to effectiveness to implementation and sustainability, and 'program drift,’ whereby deviation from manualized protocols is assumed to decrease benefit. We posit that these assumptions limit opportunities to improve care, and instead argue for understanding the changing context of healthcare to continuously refine and improve interventions as they are sustained. Sustainability has evolved from being considered as the endgame of a translational research process to a suggested 'adaptation phase’ that integrates and institutionalizes interventions within local organizational and cultural contexts. These recent approaches locate sustainability in the implementation phase of knowledge transfer, but still do not address intervention improvement as a central theme. We propose a Dynamic Sustainability Framework that involves: continued learning and problem solving, ongoing adaptation of interventions with a primary focus on fit between interventions and multi-level contexts, and expectations for ongoing improvement as opposed to diminishing outcomes over time.SummaryA Dynamic Sustainability Framework provides a foundation for research, policy and practice that supports development and testing of falsifiable hypotheses and continued learning to advance the implementation, transportability and impact of health services research.

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.