TY - JOUR
T1 - Understanding and applying the RE-AIM framework
T2 - Clarifications and resources
AU - Holtrop, Jodi Summers
AU - Estabrooks, Paul A.
AU - Gaglio, Bridget
AU - Harden, Samantha M.
AU - Kessler, Rodger S.
AU - King, Diane K.
AU - Kwan, Bethany M.
AU - Ory, Marcia G.
AU - Rabin, Borsika A.
AU - Shelton, Rachel C.
AU - Glasgow, Russell E.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s), 2021.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Introduction: Understanding, categorizing, and using implementation science theories, models, and frameworks is a complex undertaking. The issues involved are even more challenging given the large number of frameworks and that some of them evolve significantly over time. As a consequence, researchers and practitioners may be unintentionally mischaracterizing frameworks or basing actions and conclusions on outdated versions of a framework. Methods: This paper addresses how the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework has been described, summarizes how the model has evolved over time, and identifies and corrects several misconceptions. Results: We address 13 specific areas where misconceptions have been noted concerning the use of RE-AIM and summarize current guidance on these issues. We also discuss key changes to RE-AIM over the past 20 years, including the evolution to Pragmatic Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model, and provide resources for potential users to guide application of the framework. Conclusions: RE-AIM and many other theories and frameworks have evolved, been misunderstood, and sometimes been misapplied. To some degree, this is inevitable, but we conclude by suggesting some actions that reviewers, framework developers, and those selecting or applying frameworks can do to prevent or alleviate these problems.
AB - Introduction: Understanding, categorizing, and using implementation science theories, models, and frameworks is a complex undertaking. The issues involved are even more challenging given the large number of frameworks and that some of them evolve significantly over time. As a consequence, researchers and practitioners may be unintentionally mischaracterizing frameworks or basing actions and conclusions on outdated versions of a framework. Methods: This paper addresses how the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework has been described, summarizes how the model has evolved over time, and identifies and corrects several misconceptions. Results: We address 13 specific areas where misconceptions have been noted concerning the use of RE-AIM and summarize current guidance on these issues. We also discuss key changes to RE-AIM over the past 20 years, including the evolution to Pragmatic Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model, and provide resources for potential users to guide application of the framework. Conclusions: RE-AIM and many other theories and frameworks have evolved, been misunderstood, and sometimes been misapplied. To some degree, this is inevitable, but we conclude by suggesting some actions that reviewers, framework developers, and those selecting or applying frameworks can do to prevent or alleviate these problems.
KW - PRISM
KW - RE-AIM
KW - adaptation
KW - context
KW - generalization
KW - implementation science framework
KW - sustainability
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85173428929&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85173428929&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1017/cts.2021.789
DO - 10.1017/cts.2021.789
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85173428929
SN - 2059-8661
VL - 5
JO - Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
JF - Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
IS - 1
M1 - e126
ER -