Cited by 162Public Health Policies and EducationHealth Policy Implementation ScienceEvaluation and Performance Assessment

Applying the RE-AIM framework to assess the public health impact of policy change

Jilcott, Stephanie, Ammerman, Alice, Sommers, Janice, Glasgow, Russell E.·2007·Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Planning and evaluation models have been developed to assess the public health impact of health promotion interventions. However, few have been applied to health policies. There is an important need for models to help design and evaluate health policies. METHODS: This article applies the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) planning and evaluation framework to health policies. We provide definitions and application examples for different policies. RESULTS: As demonstrated by a case study, the RE-AIM dimensions and definitions can also apply to policies. Considerations regarding compliance and enforcement are presented to clarify the complex implementation dimension. CONCLUSIONS: The RE-AIM framework can be useful in estimating public health impact, comparing different health policies, planning policies designed for increased likelihood of success, and identifying areas for integration of policies with other health promotion strategies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf02872666

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Glasgow et al. recently extended their RE-AIM framework for public health interventions to health policies, revealing the challenges associated with policy as a practice-change lever.

    “Glasgow et al.[120] recently extended their heretofore behaviorally focused RE-AIM framework for public health interventions to health policies, revealing the challenges associated with policy as a practice-change lever.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jilcott, S., Ammerman, A., Sommers, J., & Glasgow, R. E.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
Corresponding author
Glasgow, Russell E.
Venue
Annals of Behavioral Medicine
Published
2007-06
Volume
34
Issue
2
Pages
105-114
ISSN
  • 0742-5554 (ISSN-L)
  • 0883-6612
  • 1532-4796
OpenAlex
W1970231984
Cited by
162
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 12
FWCI
5.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (1 R01 CA 90974-01, RO1 CA 90974-01, R01CA090974)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Public Health Policies and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Keywords
RE-AIM framework, health policy evaluation, public health impact, health promotion policy, policy implementation, policy adoption, policy maintenance, policy effectiveness, health policy planning
MeSH terms
Cardiovascular Diseases, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Food Labeling, Health Plan Implementation, Health Policy, Health Promotion, Humans, Risk Factors, United States, United States Food and Drug Administration, Health Behavior, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Evidence-Based Medicine, Guideline Adherence, Trans Fatty Acids

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review