RE-AIM: Evidence-based standards and a web resource to improve translation of research into practice

  • David A. Dzewaltowski
  • Russell E. Glasgow
  • Lisa M. Klesges
  • Paul A. Estabrooks
  • Elizabeth Brock
Article

Abstract

Background: Health services data indicate that under present conditions evidence-based medical and preventive practices are not consistently implemented in clinical practice and affect the quality of care provided to patients. Operating with similar conditions and resources, it is unlikely that evidencebased behavioral medicine (EBBM) practices will be more successfully implemented.Purpose: In this article we propose ways to help improve the implementation of EBBM practice.Methods: This article describes the RE-AIM (Reach, Efficacy/Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework that is available on a free-use Web site (http://www. re-aim.org), which offers practical research translation tools, resources, and support for program planners, community leaders, and researchers. The material located at www.re-aim.org can be used to help anticipate and overcome likely barriers to dissemination and to estimate eventual public health impact.Results: Data on Web site utilization and lessons learned thus far in its implementation are presented.Conclusions: Scientists and public health leaders should devote greater attention to reporting practice-oriented issues such as generalizability, breadth of application, and pragmatic and setting or contextual issues in addition to the current focus on internal validity issues. We hope that this and similar efforts will assist EBBM interventions to have broader applications, be consistently implemented, and be sustained.

References

  1. (1).
    National Heart Lung & Blood Institute:You Changed America’ Heart. Framingham Heart Study. Retrieved May 10, 2003, from http://rover. nhlbi.nih.gov/about/framing ham/fhsbro.htm.Google Scholar
  2. (2).
    Glass T: Psychosocial intervention. In Berkman LF, Kawachi I (eds),Social Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000, 267–305.Google Scholar
  3. (3).
    Institute of Medicine:Promoting Health: Intervention Strategies from Social and Behavioral Research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  4. (4).
    Glasgow RE, Lichtenstein E, Marcus A: Why don’t we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy to effectiveness transition.American Journal of Public Health. 2003,93:1261–1267.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. (5).
    Glasgow RE, Klesges LM, Dzewaltowski DA, Bull SS, Estabrooks P: The future of health behavior change research: What is needed to improve translation of research into health promotion practice?Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2003,27:3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. (6).
    Committee on Health Care in America, Institute of Medicine:Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  7. (7).
    McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, et al.: The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States.New England Journal of Medicine. 2003,348:2635–2645.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. (8).
    Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM: Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework.American Journal of Public Health. 1999,89:1323–1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. (9).
    Glasgow RE, Bull SS, Gillette C, Klesges LM, Dzewaltowski DA: Behavior change intervention research in health care settings: A review of recent reports, with emphasis on external validity.American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2002,23: 62–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. (10).
    Dzewaltowski DA, Estabrooks PA, Klesges LM, Bull SS, Glasgow RE: Behavior change intervention research in community settings: How generalizable are the results?Health Promotion International. 2004,19: 235–245.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. (11).
    Estabrooks PA, Dzewaltowski DA, Glasgow RE, Klesges LM: Reporting of validity from school health promotion studies published in 12 leading journals, 1996–2000.Journal of School Health. 2003,73:21–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. (12).
    Bull SS, Gillette C, Glasgow RE, Estabrooks P: Work site health promotion research: To what extent can we generalize the results and what is needed to translate research to practice?Health Education & Behavior.30:537–549.Google Scholar
  13. (13).
    Oldenburg BF, Sallis JF, Ffrench ML, Owen N: Health promotion research and the diffusion and institutionalization of interventions.Health Education Research. 1999,14:121–130.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. (14).
    Solomon S, Kington R: National efforts to promote behavior-change research: Views from the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research.Health Education Research. 2002,17:495–499.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. (15).
    Ory MG, Jordan PJ, Bazzarre T: The Behavior Change Consortium: Setting the stage for a new century of health behavior-change research.Health Education Research. 2002,17:500–511.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. (16).
    Green LW: Health education’s contributions to public health in the twentieth century: A glimpse through health promotion’s rear-view mirror.Annual Review of Public Health. 1999,20:67–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. (17).
    National Cancer Institute, Center for Advancement of Health, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation:Designing for Dissemination Conference Summary Report, December 2002. Retrieved July 20, 2002, from http://www.cancercontrol. cancer.gov/d4d/ d4d_conf_sum_report.pdfGoogle Scholar
  18. (18).
    Moher DA, Schulz KF, Altman D: The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials.Journal of the American Medical Association. 2001,285:1987–1991.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Behavioral Medicine 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • David A. Dzewaltowski
    • 1
  • Russell E. Glasgow
    • 2
  • Lisa M. Klesges
    • 3
  • Paul A. Estabrooks
    • 2
  • Elizabeth Brock
    • 1
  1. 1.K-State Research and Extension, Community Health Institute, Umberger 101Kansas State UniversityManhattan
  2. 2.Kaiser Permanente-ColoradoDenver
  3. 3.University of Tennessee Health Science CenterUSA

Personalised recommendations