ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
A mixed method evaluation using the RE-AIM framework of a student-led community-based cardiovascular disease screening clinic in an urban community setting.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Evaluations of public health interventions often prioritise outcomes while neglecting contextual and implementation factors essential for sustainability. Using the RE-AIM framework (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance), this study assessed the Young@Heart (Y@H) student-led cardiovascular disease (CVD) screening clinic-a community-based initiative that simultaneously delivers preventive health services and experiential learning for undergraduate pharmacy students. Methods: A concurrent mixed-methods case study was conducted across organisational, service, and individual levels over 12 months. Data sources included semistructured interviews with academic staff, patients, and external stakeholders; focus groups with student volunteers; service-activity data from 1,152 clinic attendees; and 20 fidelity assessments of service delivery. Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed independently, then integrated using the RE-AIM framework to triangulate findings across datasets. Results: Reach: the clinic attracted 1,152 participants (mean age 53 years), with representation from all socioeconomic deciles and 31% from the most deprived quintiles, demonstrating strong accessibility but limited engagement from younger adults. Effectiveness: High rates of modifiable risk were detected (44% elevated blood pressure, 62% overweight/obese, 36% cholesterol >5 mmol/L). Significant pre-post gains in self-reported motivation for dietary and physical-activity change ( Conclusion: Applying the RE-AIM framework provided a comprehensive evaluation of the Y@H clinic, evidencing its accessibility, effectiveness, and educational value. While strong interpersonal delivery and measurable health impact were achieved, structural limitations in referral systems and follow-up impede sustained outcomes. Strengthening cross-sector referral pathways, standardising procedures, and embedding routine evaluation will be essential to ensure scalability, equity, and long-term sustainability of this innovative student-led community health model.
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.