Table 3.
Analysis of RE-AIM metrics evaluating the public health impact of the two implementation strategies
| Domain | Description | Basic strategy | Enhanced strategy | P value | Effect sizea |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organizational-level adoption and implementation | |||||
| Adoption | Number of organizations who agree to implement the program | 11 | 11 | Equal by design | |
| Implementation | Proportion of adopting organizations who implemented program | 64 % (7/11) | 91 % (10/11) | 0.13b | 0.68 |
| CHA-level adoption, implementation, and reach | |||||
| Adoption | Number of CHAs trained per implementing organization: mean ± SD | 5.3 ± 0.8 (37/7) | 5.1 ± 0.6 (51/10) | Similar by design | |
| Implementation | Proportion of trained CHAs who delivered the program | 81 % (30/37) | 78 % (40/51) | 0.90c | – |
| Reach per CHA | Number of individuals reached per implementing CHA: mean ± SD | 8.3 ± 5.2 (250/30) | 10.6 ± 5.8 (423/40) | 0.21c | 0.41 |
| Individual-level effectiveness | |||||
| Effectiveness | Proportion of enrolled individuals who obtained CRC screening | 49 % (122/250) | 53 % (223/423) | 0.51d | 0.08 |
| Reach and impact summary measures | |||||
| Reach per organization | Number of individuals reached per organization: mean ± SD (min, max) | 23 ± 21 (0, 50) | 38 ± 17 (0, 49) | 0.06e | 0.83 |
| Impact per organization | Number of individuals screened per organization: mean ± SD (min, max) | 11 ± 14 (0, 41) | 20 ± 15 (0, 45) | 0.12e | 0.66 |
| Total reach | Total number of individuals who received the program (enrolled) | 250 | 423 | ||
| Total impact | Total number of individuals screened | 122 | 223 | ||
aEffect sizes were computed as standardized effect sizes (difference in means divided by SD) for continuous variables and h effect sizes (based on arcsine transformation) for proportions
bFisher exact test
cMixed models with CHA as unit of analysis
dMixed logistic regression model with individual as unit of analysis
eLinear regression with organization as unit of analysis