RE-AIM.org > Resources > Frequenty Asked Questions (FAQs): Applying RE-AIM

Frequently Asked Questions:
Applying RE-AIM
(last updated: July 7, 2004 )

Applying RE-AIM (FAQs page 2)

We are only conducting efficacy studies; do the RE-AIM framework and evaluation criteria still apply to us?

Yes, they do, but the specific types of information that you collect may be different than in an effectiveness or dissemination study. Specifically, you may want to select your participant sample or setting(s) to be similar to the population to which you want to generalize. Also you may want to consider the practicality and intensiveness of your intervention, so that it has good potential for later implementation, but not actually collect measures of cost-effectiveness until later studies. Across all RE-AIM criteria, you may still want to have discussions with your intended target audiences of participants, of implementers and of potential settings even though you do not collect formal data. The effect of moderator variables is very important to assess in efficacy studies, although often the research team will end up purposefully selecting one or more levels of a plausible moderator variable (e.g., education level, experience of intervention agent) rather than attempting to ensure complete representativeness at this stage of research.

Is it really possible to collect data on all or most of the RE-AIM dimensions in a single study?

Yes, it is possible, and there are relatively inexpensive ways of collecting data on most RE-AIM dimensions as you are making arrangements for your study. Example publications that have reported on all five or several RE-AIM factors are listed below. You can also refer readers to other documents or websites that report on RE-AIM issues such as representativeness in more detail than may be possible in a given study.

Lando, H.A., Valanis, B.G., Lichtenstein, E.L., et al. (2001). Promoting smoking abstinence in pregnant and postpartum patients: A comparison of 2 approaches. American Journal of Managed Care, 7, 685-693.

Glasgow, R.E., Toobert, D.J., Hampson, S.E., & Strycker, L.A. (2002). Implementation, generalization, and long-term results of the "Choosing Well" diabetes self-management intervention. Patient Education and Counseling 48(2): 115-122.

Glasgow, R.E., Whitlock, E.P., Eakin, E.G., Lichtenstein, E. (2000) A brief smoking cessation intervention for women in low-income Planned Parenthood Clinics. American Journal of Public Health, 90(5):786-789.

Glasgow, R.E., Boles, S.M., McKay, H.G., Feil, E.G., Barrera, M., Jr. (2003) The D-Net Diabetes Self-Management Program: Long-term implementation, outcomes, and generalization results. Preventive Medicine 36(4): 410-419.

^  top of page ^

The RE-AIM model seems very complicated—is there a simple way to get an overall score?

Some have suggested that a multiplicative model best fits the intent of the model that all five dimensions are equally important, and that if a program has a zero value on any dimension, that its overall public health impact will be zero. This builds upon the increasingly accepted notion of Reach X Efficacy = Impact to become Public Health Impact = R x E x A x I x M.

Others object to such formulas and feel that there is no one best way to combine the RE-AIM elements. One approach that allows the user to define their own criteria and to emphasize the issues that are most important to them is to visually display different programs on the RE-AIM dimensions so that the strengths and limitations of different programs can be quickly seen. Such visual displays appear in the articles listed below, and the following links display examples of such visual displays.

Sample Visual Displays

Interactive Technologies versus In-Person Counseling for Diabetes Self-Management:  Comparison of RE-AIM Capabilities

• 1: This figure visually displays the relative strengths and limitations of interactive computer vs. in-person based behavior change counseling along the various RE-AIM dimensions (higher scores are better on the hypothetical scale).

Display of Two Different Intervention Programs on Various RE-AIM Dimensions

• 2: This figure visually displays the hypothetical performance of a group counseling program versus a policy approach to smoking behavior change on the various RE-AIM dimensions (higher scores are better on the hypothetical scale).

Articles containing visual displays of RE-AIM dimensions:

Glasgow, R.E., McKay, H.G., Piette, J.D., Reynolds, K.D. (2001) The RE-AIM framework for evaluating interventions: What can it tell us about approaches to chronic illness management? Patient Education and Counseling, 44:119-127.

Glasgow, R.E., & Bull, S. (2001). Making a difference with interactive technology: Considerations in using and evaluating computerized aids for diabetes self-management education. Diabetes Spectrum, 14(2): 99-106

^  top of page ^

How specifically can RE-AIM be used to help translate research into practice?

By providing a set of standard criteria (Reach, Efficacy/Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) it focuses attention on key factors important for application. By considering this set of RE-AIM issues in planning, conducting, evaluating and reporting on intervention programs or policies, one should be able to anticipate and prepare for most of the major challenges in translating research programs into real world applications.

Also, by comparing alternative interventions (See Lando et al, 2001. Click here to read the abstract.), program delivery modalities (see Glasgow, McKay et al, 2001. Click here to read the abstract.) or policies on the RE-AIM criteria, decision makers in applied settings should be better able to judge the fit of a possible program with their needs and priorities.

Do you have an example of RE-AIM being applied to a real program that promotes healthy behaviors?

In Australia, a program that helps doctors promote physical activity was evaluated using the RE-AIM framework.

The Victoria Council on Fitness and General Health Inc. (VICFIT) was established through the Ministers for Sport and Recreation and Health to provide advice to government and to coordinate the promotion of fitness in Victoria.

One of VICFIT's initiatives, the Active Script Program (ASP), is designed to enable all general practitioners in Victoria to give consistent, effective and appropriate physical activity advice in their particular communities. Phase II of ASP was implemented from July 2000 to June 2001.

Click here to open a new window with an excerpt of the report. The PDF file contains the Executive Summary and a section that explains how the RE-AIM framework was used as an evaluation tool.

Visit the VICFIT website (http://www.vicfit.com.au) for more details and for the complete report

^ top of page ^