Scribd
Upload
170 views

Re-Aim Framework Constructs Checklist

The National Cancer Institute Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences developed a 2-page instrument to help those applying the RE-AIM framework (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) evaluate their programs and proposals. For each RE-AIM dimension, the instrument lists exemplar items to indicate use of that dimension. It was designed to review grant proposals and can also be used for planning, reviewing other programs/policies, or drafting reports using RE-AIM. The instrument provides a standardized way to assess how well a study addresses each RE-AIM dimension.

Uploaded by

Dorkas Mandowe
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
170 views

Re-Aim Framework Constructs Checklist

The National Cancer Institute Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences developed a 2-page instrument to help those applying the RE-AIM framework (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) evaluate their programs and proposals. For each RE-AIM dimension, the instrument lists exemplar items to indicate use of that dimension. It was designed to review grant proposals and can also be used for planning, reviewing other programs/policies, or drafting reports using RE-AIM. The instrument provides a standardized way to assess how well a study addresses each RE-AIM dimension.

Uploaded by

Dorkas Mandowe
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Measuring the Use of the RE-AIM Model Dimension Items Checklist

The Implementation Science Team at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences (DCCPS), in partnership with other key leaders and RE-AIM authors, developed and piloted a 2 page instrument to aid those interested in applying RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) to their activities. For each dimension, a list of items which indicate exemplar use of RE-AIM is provided. This instrument was designed as part of project to review grant proposals for the extent to which they have used RE-AIM and different elements of the framework in their grant applications (manuscript forthcoming). It could easily be adapted for use in planning or reviewing programs or policies, or in drafting grants or journal articles and other reports using the RE-AIM framework. This coding sheet is an expanded and updated version of earlier coding forms that have been used in reviewing the health promotion literature, but is designed specifically for those wishing to employ RE-AIM.
Study Topic Area: Study Setting:

Dimensions/Items

Included? (Yes, No, Yes-Inappropriate Use, N/A)

Reach
Exclusion Criteria (% excluded or characteristics) Percent individuals who participate, based on valid denominator (not of volunteers who indicate interest) Characteristics of participants compared to non-participants or to target population Use of qualitative methods to understand reach and/or recruitment

Effectiveness
Measure of primary outcome with or w/o comparison to a public health goal (e.g. HP 2020 goals, exercise 30 min/day; eat 5 Fruits &Veggies) Measure of broader outcomes (e.g., other outcomes, measure of QoL or potential negative outcome) or use of multiple criteria Measure of robustness across subgroups (e.g. moderation analyses) Measure of short-term attrition (%) and differential rates by patient characteristics or treatment condition Use of qualitative methods/data to understand outcomes

Adoption Setting Level


Setting Exclusions (% or reasons) Percent of settings approached that participate (valid denominator) Characteristics of settings participating (both comparison and intervention) compared to either: non participants or some relevant resource data 1 Last Edited: March 15, 2012 | http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/IS/

Measuring the Use of the RE-AIM Model Dimension Items Checklist Adoption Setting Level (continued)
Use of qualitative methods to understand adoption at setting level

Adoption Staff Level


Staff Exclusions (% or reasons) Percent of staff invited that participate Characteristics of staff participants vs. non participating staff or typical staff Use of qualitative methods to understand staff participation

Implementation
Percent of perfect delivery or calls completed, etc. (e.g., adherence or consistency) Adaptations made to intervention during study Cost of intervention (time or money) Consistency of implementation across staff/time/settings/subgroups (not about differential outcomes, but process) Use of qualitative methods to understand implementation

Maintenance Individual Level


Measure of primary outcome (with or w/o comparison to a public health goal) at 6mo follow-up after final intervention contact Measure of broader outcomes or use of multiple criteria at followup (e.g., measure of QoL or potential negative outcome) at followup Robustness data - something about subgroup effects over the longterm Measure of long-term attrition (%) and differential rates by patient characteristics or treatment condition Use of qualitative methods data to understand long -term effects

Maintenance- Setting Level


If program is still ongoing at 6 month post study funding If and how program was adapted long-term (which elements retained AFTER program completed) Some measure/discussion of alignment to organization mission or sustainability of business model Use of qualitative methods data to understand setting level institutionalization

Last Edited: March 15, 2012 | http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/IS/

You might also like