Qualitative approaches to use of the RE-AIM framework: Rationale and methods

BMC Health Services Research

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2018, Pages

  Holtrop, Jodi Summers ^a   Rabin, Borsika A ^a,b   Glasgow, Russell E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment; Evaluation; Methods; Qualitative; Re Aim

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; SCIENTIST; HEALTH PROMOTION; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; NONBIOLOGICAL MODEL; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROCEDURES; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;

HEALTH PROMOTION; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; MODELS, ORGANIZATIONAL; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;

EID: 85043580401     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726963     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-018-2938-8     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. 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. PMID: 10474547
2. Klesges LM, Estabrooks PA, Dzewaltowski DA, et al. Beginning with the application in mind: designing and planning health behavior change interventions to enhance dissemination. Ann Beh Med. 2005;29(Suppl):66-75. PMID: 15921491
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. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301299. PMID: 23597377
4. RE-AIM framework. http:/ww.re-Aim.org.
5. Prescription for Health. http://www.prescriptionforhealth.org/.
6. Active for Life Program. http://www.activeforlife.info/.
7. Move Program. https://www.move.va.gov/.
8. Vinson CA, Stamatakis KA, Kerner JF. Dissemination and implementation research in community and public health settings. In: Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor EK, editors. Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science to practice. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 355-70.
9. Shoup JA, Gaglio B, Varda D, Glasgow RE. Network analysis of RE-AIM framework: chronology of the field and the connectivity of its contributors. Transl Beh Med. 2015;5(2):216-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-014-0300-1. PMID: 26029284
10. Kessler RS, Purcell EP, Glasgow RE, et al. What does it mean to employ the RE-AIM model? Eval Health Prof. 2013;36(1):44-66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278712446066. PMID: 22615498
11. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198113486805. PMID: 23709579
12. Harden SM, Gaglio B, Shoup JA, et al. Fidelity to and comparative results across behavioral interventions evaluated through the RE-AIM framework: A systematic review. Syst Rev. 2015;4:155. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0141-0. PMID: 26547687
13. Crabtree BF, Miller WL. Doing qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1999.
14. Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative methods for health research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2014.
15. Creswell J. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2013.
16. Silverman D. Qualitative research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2010.
17. Glasgow RE, Estabrooks PE. Pragmatic Applications of RE-AIM for Health Care Initiatives in Community and Clinical Settings. Prev Chronic Dis. 2018;15:E02. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd15.170271.
18. Potworowski G, Green LA. Cognitive task analysis: methods to improve patient-centered medical home models by understanding and leveraging its knowledge work. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013.
19. Crandall B, Klein G, Hoffman RR. Working minds: A practitioner's guide to cognitive task analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2006.
20. Ritzwoller DP, Glasgow RE, Sukhanova AY, et al. Economic analyses of the be fit be well program: A weight loss program for community health centers. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28(12):1581-8. PMID: 23733374
21. Ritzwoller DP, Sukhanova A, Gaglio B, et al. Costing behavioral interventions: A practical guide to enhance translation. Ann Behav Med. 2009;37(2):218-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-009-9088-5. PMID: 19291342
22. Bellg AJ, Borrelli B, Resnick B, et al. Enhancing treatment fidelity in health behavior change studies: best practices and recommendations from the NIH behavior change consortium. Health Psychol. 2004;23(5):443-51. PMID: 15367063
23. Allen J, Linnan LA, Emmons KM. Fidelity and its relationship to implementation effectiveness, adaptations, and dissemination. In: Brownson R, Colditz GA, Proctor EK, editors. Dissemination and implementation research in health. Oxford: New York, NY; 2012.
24. Chambers DA, Norton WE. The Adaptome: Advancing the science of intervention adaptation Am J Prev Med 2016;51(4 Suppl 2):S124-S131. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.05.011. PMID: 27371105.
25. Stirman SW, Miller CJ, Toder K, et al. Development of a framework and coding system for modifications and adaptations of evidence-based interventions. Implement Sci. 2013;8:65. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-65. PMID: 23758995
26. Hall T, Holtrop JS, Dickinson LM, et al. Understanding adaptations to patient-centered medical home activities: The PCMH adaptations model. Trans Beh Med Submitted for publication. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-017-0511-3. [Epub ahead of print]
27. Castro FG, Barrera M Jr, Martinez CR Jr. The cultural adaptation of prevention interventions: resolving tensions between fidelity and fit. Prev Sci. 2004;5(1):41-5. PMID: 15058911
28. Bauman AE, Cabassa LJ, Wiltsey SS. Adaptation in dissemination and implementation science. In: Brownson RC, Colditz G, Proctor EK, editors. Dissemination and implementation research in health. New York: Oxford University Press; 2017.
29. Rhodes W, Ritzwoller DP, Glasgow RE. Stakeholder perspectives on costs and resource expenditures: Addressing economic issues most relevant to patients, providers and clinics. 2018. In Press.
30. Loudon K, Zwarenstein M, Sullivan F, et al. Making clinical trials more relevant: improving and validating the PRECIS tool for matching trial design decisions to trial purpose. Trials. 2013;14:115. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-14-115. PMID: 23782862
31. Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10:53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0242. PMID: 25895742
32. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, et al. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50. PMID: 19664226
33. CFIR Technical Assistance Website. http://cfirguide.org/
34. Feldstein A, Glasgow RE. A practical, robust implementation and sustainability model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2008;34(4):228-43. PMID: 18468362
35. Tomoaia-Cotisel A, Scammon DL, Waitzman NJ, et al. Context matters: The experience of 14 research teams in systematically reporting contextual factors important for practice change. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11(Suppl 1):S115-23. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1549. PMID: 23690380
36. Normalization process theory on-line users' manual, toolkit and NoMAD instrument. http://normalizationprocess.org/.
37. May CR, Mair F, Finch T, et al. Development of a theory of implementation and integration: normalization process theory. Implement Sci. 2009;4:29. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-29. PMID: 19460163
38. Chambers DA, Glasgow RE, Stange KC. The dynamic sustainability framework: Addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implement Sci. 2013;8:117. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-117. PMID: 24088228
39. Tabak R, Khoong EC, Chambers DA, et al. Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43(3):337-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05.024. PMID: 22898128
40. Dissemination and implementation research models. http://www.dissemination-implementation.org/.
41. Wagner EH, Austin BT, Von Korff M. Organizing care for patients with chronic illness. Milbank Q. 1996;74(4):511-44. PMID: 8941260
42. Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Millbank Q. 1966;44:Suppl 166-206. PMID: 16279964.
43. Bodenheimer T, Ghorob A, Willard-Grace R, et al. The 10 building blocks of high-performing primary care. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12(2):166-71. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1616. PMID: 24615313
44. Planning and Evaluation Questions for Initiatives Intended to Produce Public Health Impact. Available from http://re-Aim.org/resources-And-Tools/self-rating-quiz/. Accessed January 7, 2018.
45. Ory M, Altpeter M, Belza B, et al. Perceived utility of the RE-AIM framework for health promotion/disease prevention initiatives for older adults: A case study from the U.S. evidence-based disease prevention initiative. Front Public Health. 2015;2:143. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2014.00143. PMID: 25964897
46. Voorberg WH, VJJM B, Tummers LG. A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Manage Rev. 2014:1333-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505.
47. Wozniak L, Soprovich A, Rees S, et al. Contextualizing the effectiveness of a collaborative care model for primary care patients with diabetes and depression (teamcare): A qualitative assessment using RE-AIM. Can J Diabetes. 2015;39(Suppl 3):S83-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjd.2015.05.004. PMID: 26227866
48. Minkler M, Salvatore AL. Participatory approaches for study design and analysis in dissemination and implementation research. In: Brownson R, Colditz G, Proctor E, editors. Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science into practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2012.
49. Flanagan J. The critical incident technique. Psychol Bull. 1954;51(4):327-58.
50. QUALRIS workgroup: qualitative research in implementation science. Unpublished report, 2017. https://researchtoreality.cancer.gov/learning-communities/qualris.
51. Hamilton AB. Qualitative methods in rapid turn-Around Health Serv Res Dec 11, 2013. https://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/for-researchers/cyber-seminars/archives/780-notes.pdf.
52. Creswell JW, Klassen AC, Plano C, et al. Best practices for mixed methods research in the health sciences. Bethesda, MD: Office of the Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, National Institutes of Health; 2011.
53. Curry LA, Krumholz HM, O'Cathain A, et al. Mixed methods in biomedical and health services research. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013;6(1):119-23. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.112.967885. PMID: 23322807
54. Plano Clark VL. The adoption and practice of mixed methods: U.S.Trends in federally funded health-related research. Qual Inq. 2010;16:428-40.
55. Miller WL, Crabtree BF, Harrison MI, et al. Integrating mixed methods in health services and delivery system research. Health Serv Res. 2013;48(6 Pt 2):2125-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12123. PMID: 24279834
56. Palinkas LA, Cooper BR. Mixed methods evaluation in dissemination and implementation science. In: Brownson RC, Colditz G, Proctor EK, editors. Dissemination and implementation research in health. New York: Oxford University Press; 2017.
57. Jr BM, Castro FG, Strycker LA, et al. Cultural adaptations of behavioral health interventions: A progress report. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2013;81(2):196-205. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027085. PMID: 22289132
58. Estabrooks P, You W, Hedrick V, et al. A pragmatic examination of active and passive recruitment methods to improve the reach of community lifestyle programs: The talking health trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14(1):7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-017-0462-6. PMID: 28103935