National Working Group on the RE-AIM Planning and Evaluation Framework: Goals, Resources, and Future Directions

Harden, Samantha M.; Strayer, Thomas; Smith, Matthew Lee; Gaglio, Bridget; Ory, Marcia G.; Rabin, Borsika; Estabrooks, Paul A.; Glasgow, Russell E.

doi:10.3389/fpubh.2019.00390

Cited by 24 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with the RE-AIM [reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance]/PRISM [Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model] framework [ 34 ], the interventions and strategies to facilitate their dissemination, adoption, and use are the key elements of D&I efforts, which are shown on the left side of Fig. 1 : The intervention (e.g., evidence-based practice, policy, programme, treatment) to be disseminated and implemented (e.g., COVID-19 vaccines, diagnostic tests, and potential treatments, setting up an online meeting model for grand rounds, best practices for mental health screening among COVID-19 patients/healthcare workers, safety protocols and policies for birthing mothers) (e.g., the “what”) D&I strategies involve the processes, approaches, or interventions that facilitate and enhance the proactive D&I of the interventions.…”

Section: Interventions and Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All mentioned processes are only possible under the context of strong organizational commitment [ 60 ], as well as transformational (inspiring and motivating) and transactional (providing contingent rewards) leadership [ 61 ], that have shown to predict implementation success [ 62 ]. Organizational leaders can help maximize the fit between all aspects of D&I activities [ 34 ], make and effectively communicate strategic decisions, and are nimble and ready to change course midway if the iterative evaluations suggest the need for modification of goals and strategies. A successful crisis leader should be well-versed with the subject matter (e.g., public health) or consult team members with expertise in the specific area; should make evidence-based and timely decisions, while continuously collecting data from the environment; should inspire trust and confidence; and should feel responsible for the safety and welfare of the team members [ 63 ].…”

Section: Leadershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The pragmatic, rapid, and iterative dissemination and implementation (PRIDI) cycle: adapting to the dynamic nature of public health emergencies (and beyond)

Yousefi‐Nooraie

Shelton

Fiscella

et al. 2021

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Public health emergencies—such as the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic—accelerate the need for both evidence generation and rapid dissemination and implementation (D&I) of evidence where it is most needed. In this paper, we reflect on how D&I frameworks and methods can be pragmatic (i.e., relevant to real-world context) tools for rapid and iterative planning, implementation, evaluation, and dissemination of evidence to address public health emergencies. The pragmatic, rapid, and iterative D&I (PRIDI) cycle The PRIDI cycle is based on a “double-loop” learning process that recognizes the need for responsiveness and iterative adaptation of implementation cycle (inner loop) to the moving landscapes, presented by the outer loops of emerging goals and desired outcomes, emerging interventions and D&I strategies, evolving evidence, and emerging characteristics and needs of individuals and contexts. Stakeholders iteratively evaluate these surrounding landscapes of implementation, and reconsider implementation plans and activities. Conclusion Even when the health system priority is provision of the best care to the individuals in need, and scientists are focused on development of effective diagnostic and therapeutic technologies, planning for D&I is critical. Without a flexible and adaptive process of D&I, which is responsive to emerging evidence generation cycles, and closely connected to the needs and priorities of stakeholders and target users through engagement and feedback, the interventions to mitigate public health emergencies (e.g., COVID-19 pandemic), and other emerging issues, will have limited reach and impact on populations that would most benefit. The PRIDI cycle is intended to provide a pragmatic approach to support planning for D&I throughout the evidence generation and usage processes.

show abstract

Section: Interventions and Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Leadershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

The pragmatic, rapid, and iterative dissemination and implementation (PRIDI) cycle: adapting to the dynamic nature of public health emergencies (and beyond)

Yousefi‐Nooraie

Shelton

Fiscella

et al. 2021

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The resulting framework selected from this process was a unified RE-AIM and Practical, Robust, Implementation, and Sustainability (PRISM) model (see Fig. 1 ; Glasgow et al, 2019 ; Harden et al, 2019 ; Kwan et al, 2019 ). For a complete description of this model applied to the context of the HCS, please see Walsh et al, in press under review.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model and approach for assessing implementation context and fidelity in the HEALing Communities Study

Knudsen

Drainoni

Gilbert

et al. 2020

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights The HEALing Communities Study tests a community intervention to address the opioid epidemic. The RE-AIM/PRISM framework guides measurement of internal and external contexts. Contextual data are collected via surveys and qualitative interviews. Fidelity measures include dosage, adherence, quality, and adaption of the intervention.

show abstract

“…RE-AIM was the most frequently used framework. There is a body of literature on how RE-AIM has been developed and used over time [ 116 ], and examples of its application. This may have helped to build a better understanding of how its components are defined and how they can be linked to data sources.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of the use and reporting of evaluation frameworks within evaluations of physical activity interventions

Fynn

Hardeman

Milton

et al. 2020

Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Evaluation of physical activity interventions is vital to inform, and justify, evidence-based policy and practice to support population-wide changes in physical activity. Several evaluation frameworks and guidance documents have been developed to facilitate the evaluation and reporting of evaluation studies in public health. However, there is a lack of evidence about whether frameworks are being used to guide evaluation. There continues to be claims of poor and inconsistent reporting in evaluation studies. The aim of this review was to assess the use of evaluation frameworks and the quality of reporting of how they were applied within evaluation studies of physical activity interventions. Objectives To identify whether evaluation frameworks are reported to have been used within evaluation studies of physical activity interventions, and which frameworks have been used. To appraise the quality of reporting with regards to how evaluation frameworks have been used. Method We developed a checklist of indicators to enable a critical appraisal of the use and reporting of different evaluation frameworks in evaluation studies. We conducted a systematic search and review of evaluation studies published between 2015 and the date of the search to appraise the use and reporting of evaluation frameworks. A narrative synthesis is provided. Results The review identified 292 evaluation studies of physical activity interventions, only 69 (23%) of these mentioned using an evaluation framework, and only 16 different frameworks were referred to. There was variation in the quality of reporting of framework use. 51 (74%) studies were identified as being explicitly based on the stated framework, however only 26 (38%) provided detailed descriptions consistently across all the checklist indicators. Details of adaptations and limitations in how frameworks were applied were less frequently reported. The review also highlighted variability in the reporting of intervention components. More consistent and precise reporting of framework and intervention components is needed. Conclusion Evaluation frameworks can facilitate a more systematic evaluation report and we argue their limited use suggests missed opportunities to apply frameworks to guide evaluation and reporting in evaluation studies. Variability in the quality of reporting of framework use limits the comparability and transferability of evidence. Where a framework has been used, the checklist of indicators can be employed to facilitate the reporting of an evaluation study and to review the quality of an evaluation report.

show abstract

National Working Group on the RE-AIM Planning and Evaluation Framework: Goals, Resources, and Future Directions

Cited by 24 publications

References 45 publications

The pragmatic, rapid, and iterative dissemination and implementation (PRIDI) cycle: adapting to the dynamic nature of public health emergencies (and beyond)

The pragmatic, rapid, and iterative dissemination and implementation (PRIDI) cycle: adapting to the dynamic nature of public health emergencies (and beyond)

Model and approach for assessing implementation context and fidelity in the HEALing Communities Study

A systematic review of the use and reporting of evaluation frameworks within evaluations of physical activity interventions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About