↓ Skip to main content

Qualitative approaches to use of the RE-AIM framework: rationale and methods

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
26 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
192 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
461 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Qualitative approaches to use of the RE-AIM framework: rationale and methods
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-2938-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jodi Summers Holtrop, Borsika A. Rabin, Russell E. Glasgow

Abstract

There have been over 430 publications using the RE-AIM model for planning and evaluation of health programs and policies, as well as numerous applications of the model in grant proposals and national programs. Full use of the model includes use of qualitative methods to understand why and how results were obtained on different RE-AIM dimensions, however, recent reviews have revealed that qualitative methods have been used infrequently. Having quantitative and qualitative methods and results iteratively inform each other should enhance understanding and lessons learned. Because there have been few published examples of qualitative approaches and methods using RE-AIM for planning or assessment and no guidance on how qualitative approaches can inform these processes, we provide guidance on qualitative methods to address the RE-AIM model and its various dimensions. The intended audience is researchers interested in applying RE-AIM or similar implementation models, but the methods discussed should also be relevant to those in community or clinical settings. We present directions for, examples of, and guidance on how qualitative methods can be used to address each of the five RE-AIM dimensions. Formative qualitative methods can be helpful in planning interventions and designing for dissemination. Summative qualitative methods are useful when used in an iterative, mixed methods approach for understanding how and why different patterns of results occur. In summary, qualitative and mixed methods approaches to RE-AIM help understand complex situations and results, why and how outcomes were obtained, and contextual factors not easily assessed using quantitative measures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 461 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 461 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 76 16%
Student > Master 66 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 60 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 30 7%
Student > Bachelor 23 5%
Other 69 15%
Unknown 137 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 75 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 66 14%
Social Sciences 55 12%
Psychology 30 7%
Sports and Recreations 10 2%
Other 64 14%
Unknown 161 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 January 2021.
All research outputs
#1,484,160
of 24,498,639 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#479
of 8,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,181
of 338,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#20
of 220 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,498,639 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,276 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 338,122 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 220 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.