ArticleFrontiers in health services2023
Applying RE-AIM to evaluations of Veterans Health Administration Enterprise-Wide Initiatives: lessons learned.
Article in Frontiers in health services, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating spoke facilitation costs of implementing TelePain in the Veterans Health Administration.Implementation science communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The United States Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Office of Rural Health funds Enterprise-Wide Initiatives (system-wide initiatives) to spread promising practices to rural Veterans. The Office requires that evaluations of Enterprise-Wide Initiatives use the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. This presents a unique opportunity to understand the experience of using RE-AIM across a series of evaluations. The authors conducted a study to document the benefits and pitfalls of using RE-AIM, capture the variety of ways that the team captured the elements of RE-AIM, and develop recommendations for the future use of RE-AIM in evaluation. Materials and methods: The authors first conducted a document review to capture pre-existing information about how RE-AIM was used. They subsequently facilitated two focus groups to gather more detailed information from team members who had used RE-AIM. Finally, they used member-checking throughout the writing process to ensure accurate data representation and interpretation and to gather additional feedback. Results: Four themes emerged from the document review, focus groups, and member checking. RE-
aimprovides parameters and controls the evaluation scope, "buckets" are logical, plays well with other frameworks, and can foster collaboration or silo within a team. Challenges and attributes for each RE-AIM dimension were also described. Discussion: Overall, participants reported both strengths and challenges to using RE-AIM as an evaluation framework. The overarching theme around the challenges with RE-AIM dimensions was the importance of context. Many of these benefits and challenges of using RE-AIM may not be unique to RE-AIM and would likely occur when using any prescribed framework. The participants reported on the RE-AIM domains in a variety of ways in their evaluation reports and were not always able capture data as originally planned. Recommendations included: start with an evaluation framework (or frameworks) and revisit it throughout the evaluation, consider applying RE-AIM PRISM (Practical Robust Implementation Framework) to gain a broader perspective, and intentionally integrate quantitative and qualitative team members, regardless of the framework used.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.