Table 4.

Inclusion of Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) items across all interventions (N=22).^a,b

RE-AIM dimension and items			Values, n (%)
Reach (44.3%)
	Exclusion criteria	17 (77)
	Participation rate	16 (73)
	Representativeness	6 (27)
	Use of qualitative methods to understand reach and recruitment	0 (0)
Effectiveness (52.7%)
	Measure of primary outcome	22 (100)
	Measure of broader outcomes (ie, QoLc, negative outcomes)	11 (50)
	Measure of robustness across subgroups	4 (18)
	Measure of short-term attrition	14 (64)
	Use of qualitative methods or data to understand outcomes	7 (32)
Adoption-setting (3.4%)
	Setting exclusions	2 (9)
	Setting adoption rate	1 (4)
	Setting representativeness	0 (0)
	Use of qualitative methods to understand adoption at setting level	0 (0)
Adoption-staff (0%)
	Staff exclusions	0 (0)
	Staff participation rate	0 (0)
	Staff representativeness	0 (0)
	Use of qualitative methods to understand staff participation	0 (0)
Implementation (10%)
	Delivered as intended	5 (23)
	Adaptations to intervention	4 (18)
	Cost of intervention (time or money)	0 (0)
	Consistency of implementation across staff or time or settings subgroups	2 (9)
	Use of qualitative methods to understand implementation	0 (0)
Maintenance-individual (9%)
	Measure of primary outcome at ≥6-mo follow-up	3 (14)
	Measure of broader outcomes (ie, QoL, negative outcomes) at follow-up	2 (9)
	Measure of long-term robustness across subgroups	2 (9)
	Measure of long-term attrition	3 (14)
	Use of qualitative methods to understand long-term effects	0 (0)
Maintenance-setting (3.4%)
	Program ongoing (≥6-mo poststudy funding)	1 (4)
	Long-term program adaptations	2 (9.1)
	Some discussion of sustainability of business model	0 (0)
	Use of qualitative methods to understand setting-level institutionalization	0 (0)

^aThe table formatting was adapted from Burke et al [47].

^bOverall RE-AIM was 18.2%.

^cQoL: quality of life.