Table 3.
Reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance dimensions
| Dimension | Definition | Key Pragmatic Priorities |
|---|---|---|
| Reach | The absolute number, proportion, and representativeness of settings and intervention agents who are willing to initiate a program. | WHO is (was) intended to benefit and who actually participates or is exposed to the intervention? |
| Effectiveness | The impact of an intervention on important outcomes, including potential negative effects, quality of life, and economic outcomes. | WHAT is (was) the most important benefit you are trying to achieve and what is (was) the likelihood of negative outcomes? |
| Adoption | The absolute number, proportion, and representativeness of settings and intervention agents who are willing to initiate a program. | WHERE is (was) the program or policy applied and WHO applied it? |
| Implementation | At the setting level, implementation refers to the intervention agents’ fidelity to the various elements of an intervention’s protocol. This includes consistency of delivery as intended, adaptations made, and the time and cost of the intervention. | HOW consistently is (was) the program or policy delivered, HOW will (was) it be adapted, HOW much will (did) it cost, and WHY will (did) the results come about? |
| Maintenance | The extent to which a program or policy becomes institutionalized or part of the routine organizational practices and policies. Maintenance in the RE-AIM framework also has referents at the individual level. At the individual level, maintenance has been defined as the long-term effects of a program on outcomes after 6 or more months after the most recent intervention contact. | WHEN will (was) the initiative become operational, how long will (was) it be sustained (setting level), and how long are the results sustained (individual level)? |
Data from Glasgow RE, Harden SM, Gaglio B et al. RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework: adapting to new science and practice with a 20-year review. Front Public Health. 2019;7:64 and Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9):1322–1327.