Reilly Kathryn Louise, Kennedy Sarah, Porter Gwenndolyn, Estabrooks Paul
School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
The Priority Research Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Education, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Front Public Health. 2020 Sep 2;8:430. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00430. eCollection 2020.
As the field of dissemination and implementation science matures, there are a myriad of outcomes, identified in numerous frameworks, that can be considered across individual, organizational, and population levels. This can lead to difficulty in summarizing literature, comparing across studies, and advancing translational science. This manuscript sought to (1) compare, contrast, and integrate the outcomes included in the RE-AIM and Implementation Outcomes Frameworks (IOF) and (2) expand RE-AIM indicators to include relevant IOF dissemination and implementation outcomes. Cross tabular comparisons were made between the constitutive definitions of each construct, across frameworks, to reconcile apparent discrepancies between approaches and to distinguish between implementation outcomes and implementation antecedents. A great deal of consistency was identified across approaches, including adoption (the intention, initial decision, or action to employ an evidence-based intervention), fidelity/implementation (the degree to which an intervention was delivered as intended), organizational maintenance/sustainability (extent to which a newly implemented treatment is maintained or institutionalized), and cost. The IOF construct of penetration was defined as a higher-order construct that may encompass the reach, adoption, and organizational maintenance outcomes within RE-AIM. Within the IOF approach acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility did not match constitutive definitions of dissemination or implementation but rather reflected theoretical antecedents of implementation outcomes. Integration of the IOF approach across RE-AIM indicators was successfully achieved by expanding the operational definitions of RE-AIM to include antecedents to reach, adoption, implementation, and organizational maintenance. Additional combined metrics were also introduced including penetration, individual level utility, service provider utility, organizational utility, and systemic utility. The expanded RE-AIM indicators move beyond the current approaches described within both the RE-AIM framework and IOF and provides additional planning and evaluation targets that can contribute to the scientific field and increase the translation of evidence into practice.
随着传播与实施科学领域的成熟,在众多框架中确定了无数可在个体、组织和人群层面加以考量的结果。这可能导致在总结文献、跨研究比较以及推进转化科学方面存在困难。本手稿旨在(1)比较、对比并整合 RE-AIM 和实施结果框架(IOF)中包含的结果,以及(2)扩展 RE-AIM 指标,以纳入相关的 IOF 传播与实施结果。在各个框架之间,对每个构念的构成性定义进行了交叉表格比较,以协调方法之间明显的差异,并区分实施结果和实施前提。在各种方法中发现了大量的一致性,包括采用(采用基于证据的干预措施的意图、初步决定或行动)、保真度/实施(干预措施按预期实施的程度)、组织维持/可持续性(新实施的治疗方法得以维持或制度化的程度)以及成本。IOF 中的渗透构念被定义为一个高阶构念,可能涵盖 RE-AIM 中的覆盖范围、采用和组织维持结果。在 IOF 方法中,可接受性、适宜性和可行性与传播或实施的构成性定义不匹配,而是反映了实施结果的理论前提。通过扩展 RE-AIM 的操作定义,将覆盖范围、采用、实施和组织维持的前提纳入其中,成功实现了 IOF 方法在 RE-AIM 指标中的整合。还引入了其他综合指标,包括渗透、个体层面效用、服务提供者效用、组织效用和系统效用。扩展后的 RE-AIM 指标超越了 RE-AIM 框架和 IOF 中描述的当前方法,并提供了额外的规划和评估目标,可为科学领域做出贡献,并增加将证据转化为实践的程度。