Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework

R E Glasgow, T M Vogt, S M Boles, R E Glasgow, T M Vogt, S M Boles

Abstract

Progress in public health and community-based interventions has been hampered by the lack of a comprehensive evaluation framework appropriate to such programs. Multilevel interventions that incorporate policy, environmental, and individual components should be evaluated with measurements suited to their settings, goals, and purpose. In this commentary, the authors propose a model (termed the RE-AIM model) for evaluating public health interventions that assesses 5 dimensions: reach, efficacy, adoption, implementation, and maintenance. These dimensions occur at multiple levels (e.g., individual, clinic or organization, community) and interact to determine the public health or population-based impact of a program or policy. The authors discuss issues in evaluating each of these dimensions and combining them to determine overall public health impact. Failure to adequately evaluate programs on all 5 dimensions can lead to a waste of resources, discontinuities between stages of research, and failure to improve public health to the limits of our capacity. The authors summarize strengths and limitations of the RE-AIM model and recommend areas for future research and application.

References

    1. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1992 Aug;60(4):518-27
    1. JAMA. 1992 Apr 1;267(13):1788-93
    1. Diabetes Care. 1993 Feb;16(2):509-18
    1. Health Educ Q. 1993 Summer;20(2):161-78
    1. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993 Sep 15;85(18):1460-74
    1. Health Educ Q. 1993 Fall;20(3):391-408
    1. Diabetes Care. 1994 Jun;17 Suppl 1:22-7
    1. Am J Public Health. 1995 Feb;85(2):156-8
    1. Am J Public Health. 1995 Feb;85(2):159-60
    1. Public Health Rep. 1995 May-Jun;110(3):251-9
    1. Psychosom Med. 1995 May-Jun;57(3):234-44
    1. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1995 Oct;63(5):718-25
    1. Health Educ Q. 1996 May;23(2):137-58
    1. Am J Health Promot. 1996 Mar-Apr;10(4):270-81
    1. Am J Health Promot. 1996 Mar-Apr;10(4):282-98
    1. Diabetes Educ. 1996 Nov-Dec;22(6):573-4, 581-2, 584-5
    1. Adolescence. 1997 Spring;32(125):1-24
    1. Ann Intern Med. 1997 Jul 15;127(2):138-41
    1. Ann Intern Med. 1997 Dec 15;127(12):1097-102
    1. Patient Educ Couns. 1997 Nov;32(3):175-84
    1. Cancer Causes Control. 1997 Nov;8 Suppl 1:S31-4
    1. Med Care. 1998 May;36(5):670-8
    1. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19:379-416
    1. JAMA. 1998 Sep 16;280(11):1006-8
    1. Am J Public Health. 1999 Mar;89(3):295-8
    1. Diabetes Care. 1999 May;22(5):832-43
    1. J Chronic Dis. 1977 Jan;30(1):39-48
    1. Science. 1977 Feb 4;195(4277):457-62
    1. Am J Public Health. 1981 Nov;71(11):1228-32
    1. Cancer Detect Prev. 1986;9(1-2):125-38
    1. J Occup Med. 1987 Apr;29(4):317-20
    1. Diabet Med. 1988 Mar;5(2):107-9
    1. Science. 1990 Jan 26;247(4941):418-22
    1. Am Psychol. 1992 Jan;47(1):6-22
    1. JAMA. 1992 Mar 25;267(12):1645-8
    1. Diabetes Care. 1992 Oct;15(10):1423-32

Source: PubMed

3
Sottoscrivi