Applying Relevant RE-AIM Categories to Social Screening Implementation Studies*
| Definitions† | Relevant outcomes applied to social screening implementation studies | |
|---|---|---|
| Reach | The number or proportion of individuals who participate in an intervention (and who are the target of that intervention). | Comparative screening rates, including pre/post intervention, between clinical sites, or by patient sociodemographic characteristics. |
| Adoption | The number or proportion of individuals or settings that deliver the intervention. | Rates of screening by clinical workforce. These included proxies for workforce screening, including rates of electronic health record-documented social screening. |
| Implementation | The consistency with which an intervention is delivered, the time and cost of an intervention, and adaptions made to an intervention. | Perceived barriers/facilitators to screening implementation; time required for screening; comparative implementation approaches and program fidelity (e.g. across modality, workforce); and program costs. |
| Maintenance | The extent to which an intervention is sustained over time. | Rates of screening over time. |
↵* Table originally published in De Marchis EH, Brown E, Aceves BA, et al. State of the Science on Social Screening in Healthcare Settings. San Francisco, CA: Social Interventions Research and Evaluation Network. San Francisco, CA: Social Interventions Research and Evaluation Network. Available online.2 Reproduced with permission.
↵† Definitions based on 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;7:64,12 and Shelton RC, Chambers DA, Glasgow RE. An Extension of RE-AIM to Enhance Sustainability: Addressing Dynamic Context and Promoting Health Equity Over Time. Front Public Health. 2020;8:134.24