Skip Navigation


Health Education Research Advance Access originally published online on August 31, 2006
Health Education Research 2006 21(5):688-694; doi:10.1093/her/cyl081
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
21/5/688    most recent
cyl081v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (10)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Glasgow, R. E.
Right arrow Articles by Vogt, T. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Glasgow, R. E.
Right arrow Articles by Vogt, T. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Evaluating the impact of health promotion programs: using the RE-AIM framework to form summary measures for decision making involving complex issues

Russell E. Glasgow1,*, Lisa M. Klesges2, David A. Dzewaltowski3, Paul A. Estabrooks1 and Thomas M. Vogt4

1 Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Clinical Research Unit, 335 Road Runner Lane Penrose, Denver, CO 81240, USA
2 Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA
3 Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA
4 Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Honolulu, HI, USA

*Correspondence to: R. E. Glasgow. E-mail: russg{at}ris.net

Current public health and medical evidence rely heavily on efficacy information to make decisions regarding intervention impact. This evidence base could be enhanced by research studies that evaluate and report multiple indicators of internal and external validity such as Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) as well as their combined impact. However, indices that summarize the combined impact of, and complex interactions among, intervention outcome dimensions are not currently available. We propose and discuss a series of composite metrics that combine two or more RE-AIM dimensions, and can be used to estimate overall intervention impact. Although speculative and, at this point, there have been limited empirical data on these metrics, they extend current methods and are offered to yield more integrated composite outcomes relevant to public health. Such approaches offer potential to help identify interventions most likely to meaningfully impact population health.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Public HealthHome page
R. C. Brownson, P. Ballew, K. L. Brown, M. B. Elliott, D. Haire-Joshu, G. W. Heath, and M. W. Kreuter
The Effect of Disseminating Evidence-Based Interventions That Promote Physical Activity to Health Departments
Am J Public Health, October 1, 2007; 97(10): 1900 - 1907.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.