Using the RE‐AIM framework for dissemination and implementation of psychosocial distress screening

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the RE‐AIM framework's effect on retention of participants and implementation outcomes of a 5‐year cancer research education programme on psychosocial distress screening in cancer centres across the United States. Methods A one‐group pre‐/post‐test design was used to evaluate the programme on participant retention and implementation outcomes at 6, 12 and 24 months after enrolling in the programme (baseline) and analysed using descriptive statistics. Results Seventy‐two cancer centres participated in four cohorts. Participant retention was 100%. At baseline and 24 months, respectively, 52 (72%) and 64 (88%) of the cancer centres had formulated a psychosocial distress screening policy; 51 (71%) and 70 (98%) had started screening in more than one clinic/population; 15 (21%) and 45 (63%) had started auditing health records for documentation of screening. Each outcome rate improved at the cancer‐centre level over the 24 months. Conclusion RE‐AIM can be used as a framework for cancer research education programmes. Future research is needed on the use of a randomised adaptive design to test the optimal support for implementation of quality care standards according to cancer centres' needs.

Management of Distress in Patients with Cancer—Are We Doing the Right Thing?

“…For successful implementation, a multilevel approach that targets the patient, provider and system level is indicated [ 13 , 14 ]. The Screening for Psychosocial Distress Program (SPDP) is such a multilevel approach [ 25 ]. This approach indeed resulted in substantial improvements in the implementation of screening.…”

“…Frameworks used in dissemination and implementation science provide an excellent foundation for identifying how to design and evaluate strategies for the optimization of distress screening and referral programs [ 14 , 25 ]. For example, RE-AIM as applied to distress screening involves measurement of the reach (proportion of patients with access to and uptake of distress screening), effectiveness (patients’ and providers’ experiences with distress screening, clinical effectiveness of the screening), adoption (process, timing, use of both screening and referral procedures), implementation (use of screening as intended; barriers and facilitators; and costs) and maintenance (effectiveness, use and adaptations made over time) [ 14 ].…”

“…The Screening for Psychosocial Distress Program (SPDP) was developed to support nationwide implementation of distress screening in the USA [ 25 ]. The SPDP was designed as an educational program with participants attending one workshop each year (total of two face-to-face workshops) with telephone support provided over the 2 years of participation to solve implementation issues.…”

‘Feelings, and feelings, and feelings. Let me try thinking instead’: Screening for distress and referral to psychosocial care for men with prostate cancer

“…Learning tools have been developed and are in trial. Recently, Lazenby and colleagues reported the successful dissemination and implementation of psychosocial distress screening at 72 cancer centres in North America (Lazenby et al, ). The involvement of key stakeholder groups was crucial to the success of this programme, and with this involvement came the commitment of resources.…”

Re‐imagining Psycho‐oncology

“…In this Issue, Lazenby et al () consider the implementation of distress screening across seventy‐two North American cancer centres guided by the RE‐AIM framework (Glasgow, Vogt, & Boles, ). This real world study highlights how implementation theory coupled with cross‐disciplinary collaboration, and a systems approach can meaningfully support quality cancer care standards.…”