The RE-AIM framework for evaluating interventions: what can it tell us about approaches to chronic illness management?

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-3991(00)00186-5Get rights and content

Abstract

Background: The RE-AIM framework is used as a method of systematically considering the strengths and weaknesses of chronic illness management interventions in order to guide program planning. Method: The RE-AIM dimensions of Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance are used to rate one-on-one counseling interventions, group sessions, interactive computer-mediated interventions, telephone calls, mail interventions, and health system policies. Results: The RE-AIM ratings suggest that, although often efficacious for those participating, traditional face-to-face intervention modalities will have limited impact if they cannot be delivered consistently to large segments of the target population. Interventions using new information technologies may have greater reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance, and thereby greater public health impact. Policy changes received high ratings across a variety of RE-AIM dimensions. Conclusions: Program planners should make decisions regarding implementing and funding health services based on multiple dimensions, rather than only considering efficacy in randomized clinical trials. Doing so may improve the resulting public health impact. Directions for future chronic illness management research related to RE-AIM, and implications for decision making, are described.

Introduction

Care of patients with chronic illnesses is arguably the major health care challenge for the next century [1], [2]. Chronic illness management modalities include face-to-face counseling, community outreach programs, and computer-mediated interventions. Often choices regarding which type of intervention to adopt are based on organizational precedence, convenience for providers, or results in randomized efficacy trials rather than impact in practice settings. More comprehensive evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of different delivery modalities should lead to greater public health impact and more cost-effective health care.

This article illustrates how many commonly used interventions can result in inequitable and limited patient participation, and poor implementation, impact, and maintenance. Our purpose is to stimulate a more comprehensive and systematic comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of different intervention modalities so that resources are allocated in the most efficient and equitable manner. To accomplish this, we use the “RE-AIM” framework [3], [4], [5], [6] to help refocus priorities on public health issues and give balanced emphasis to internal and external validity. Like previous work by Green et al. [7], Rogers [8], and Abrams et al. [9], upon which it draws, RE-AIM is concerned with issues related to impact in real-world settings and the translation of research to practice. RE-AIM integrates and extends this previous work by incorporating both individual and organizational setting level variables, and by including long-term maintenance issues at both levels. A major feature of RE-AIM is that it shifts the focus from short-term efficacy among restricted samples of participants in randomized efficacy trials to longer-term effectiveness in real-world settings.

We illustrate the use of RE-AIM for comparing chronic disease intervention modalities. The RE-AIM model consists of five evaluative dimensions that describe the overall population-based impact of an intervention: Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (see Table 1).

Reach refers to the participation rate within the target population and the characteristics of participants versus non-participants. Factors determining reach are the size and characteristics of the potential audience and patients’ barriers (e.g. cost, necessary referrals, scheduling, transportation, and inconvenience) to participation. Efficacy pertains to the impact of an intervention on specified outcome criteria, when it is implemented as intended [10], [11]. Adoption operates at the system level and concerns the percentage and representativeness of organizations that will adopt a given program. Factors associated with adoption include cost, level of resources and expertise required, and how similar a proposed service is to current practices of the organization. Implementation refers to intervention integrity, or the quality and consistency of delivery when the intervention is replicated in real-world settings. Finally, Maintenance operates at both the individual and the system level. At the individual level, maintenance refers to how well behavior change efforts hold up in the long term. At the organization level, it refers to the extent to which a treatment or practice becomes institutionalized [12] as a routine part of usual care within an organization.

Section snippets

Intervention modalities

To illustrate the application of RE-AIM, we compared 13 common chronic illness intervention modalities (Columns 1–3 in Table 2) using the five RE-AIM dimensions. Of course, different interventions can be used in combination or simultaneously. Nevertheless, each of the interventions we considered is conceptually distinct, and comparisons using the various RE-AIM dimensions can be enlightening. In rating different modalities, we have assumed that the content is appropriate for the audience in

Results of consensus ratings

Within the broad categories just described, we considered 13 specific intervention types. The four authors each independently categorized each intervention type as high, medium, or low on each of the five RE-AIM dimensions (Table 3). When there were disagreements, majority ratings were used.

Discussion

This article illustrates use of a new framework for considering the strengths and limitations of chronic illness intervention modalities. The various RE-AIM dimensions provide a comprehensive set of criteria for evaluating interventions that should be of relevance to researchers, funders, and program planners [3], [5]. Two strengths of this approach that make it particularly appropriate for public health and population-based applications are its emphasis on external validity (Reach and

Implications for practice and policy

The purpose of this article was to illustrate the use of the RE-AIM model as a heuristic framework with which chronic disease management strategies can be considered and compared. By providing a common metric for evaluating a wide range of interventions, the RE-AIM framework could be used to set priorities for research funding and reimbursement. By addressing both individual and system level impacts, RE-AIM could form the basis for a more sophisticated consideration of interventions from the

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by NIH grants, RO1 DK 35524-13 (Dr. Glasgow), 5 PO1 CA72085 (Dr. Glasgow), RO1 DK 51581 (Dr. McKay), and the Health Services Research and Development Service and Mental Health Strategic Health Group of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and by the Clinical Research Grants Program of the American Diabetes Association (Dr. Piette). We thank Dr. Tom Vogt for helpful comments on an earlier draft.

References (33)

  • B.R. Flay

    Efficacy and effectiveness trials (and other phases of research) in the development of health promotion programs

    Prev. Med.

    (1986)
  • J. Noell et al.

    Interactive technology applications for behavioral counseling: issues and opportunities for health care settings

    Am. J. Prev. Med.

    (1999)
  • Von Korff M, Gruman J, Schaefer J, et al. Collaborative management of chronic illness. Ann Intern Med...
  • Lorig KR, Sobel DS, Stewart AL, et al. Evidence suggesting that a chronic disease self-management program can improve...
  • R.E. Glasgow et al.

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

    Am. J. Public Health

    (1999)
  • Glasgow RE, Eakin EG. Medical office-based interventions. In: Snoek FJ, Skinner CS, editors. Psychological Aspects Of...
  • Glasgow RE, Fisher EB, Anderson BJ, et al. Behavioral science in diabetes: contributions and opportunities. Diabetes...
  • Glasgow RE, Wagner E, Kaplan RM, et al. If diabetes is a public health problem, why not treat it as one? a...
  • Green L, Kreuter, M, Deeds P. Health Education Planning: A Diagnostic Approach. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing,...
  • Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press,...
  • Abrams DB, Emmons KM, Linnan LA. Health behavior and health education: the past, present, and future. In: Glanz K,...
  • Meinert CL. Clinical Trials: Design, Conduct and Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press,...
  • R.M. Goodman et al.

    A model for the institutionalization of health promotion programs

    Fam. Comm. Health

    (1987)
  • Skinner CS, Campbell MK, Rimer BK, et al. How effective is tailored print communication? Ann Behav Med...
  • S. Krishna et al.

    Clinical trials of interactive computerized patient education: implications for family practice

    J. Fam. Pract.

    (1997)
  • D.M. Mullen et al.

    A meta-analysis of trials evaluating patient education and counseling for three groups of preventive health behaviors

    Patient Educ. Couns.

    (1997)
  • Cited by (498)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text