The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Qualitative approaches to use of the RE-AIM framework: rationale and methods
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches
Lewis, S. (2015) · Health Promotion Practice · doi:10.1177/1524839915580941 · Cited by 22,105
(2017) · Cited by 16,036
Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C. (2009) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-50 · Cited by 14,496
The critical incident technique.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0061470 · Cited by 8,191
Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework.
Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.89.9.1322 · Cited by 7,217 · cited 1×
“[1] RE-AIM includes five dimensions to call attention to the importance of measuring not only a traditional clinical outcome (i.”
BackgroundSelf-citationEvaluating the quality of medical care
DONABEDIAN, A. (2005) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00397.x · Cited by 6,102
(2007) · Encyclopedia of Industrial and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.4135/9781412952651.n55 · Cited by 5,287
Qualitative methods for health research
(2009) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.47-0901 · Cited by 4,596
Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks
Nilsen, P. (2015) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0 · Cited by 4,447
Evaluating the Quality of Medical Care
Donabedian, A. (1966) · The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3348969 · Cited by 4,312
Cited by
RE-AIM Planning and Evaluation Framework: Adapting to New Science and Practice With a 20-Year Review
Glasgow, R. E., Harden, S. M., Gaglio, B., Rabin, B., Smith, M. L., Porter, G. C., Ory, M. G., & Estabrooks, P. A. (2019) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2019.00064 · Cited by 2,528
Self-citationQualitative methods in implementation research: An introduction
Hamilton, A. B., & Finley, E. P. (2019) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112516 · Cited by 1,315
Systematic review of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework
Moullin, J. C., Dickson, K. S., Stadnick, N. A., Rabin, B., & Aarons, G. A. (2019) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-018-0842-6 · Cited by 1,223
Self-citationUnderstanding and applying the RE-AIM framework: Clarifications and resources
Holtrop, J. S., Estabrooks, P. A., Gaglio, B., Harden, S. M., Kessler, R. S., King, D. K., Kwan, B. M., Ory, M. G., Rabin, B. A., Shelton, R. C., et al. (2021) · Journal of Clinical and Translational Science · doi:10.1017/cts.2021.789 · Cited by 549
Self-citationShelton, R. C., Chambers, D. A., & Glasgow, R. E. (2020) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2020.00134 · Cited by 448
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Holtrop, J. S., Rabin, B. A., & Glasgow, R. E.
- Venue
- BMC Health Services Research
- Published
- 2018-03-13
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 177-177
- ISSN
- 1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2804954393
- Cited by
- 375
- References
- 56
- FWCI
- 33.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Qualitative approaches to use of the RE-AIM framework: rationale and methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s12913-018-2938-8
- The paper
- Holtrop, J. S., Rabin, B. A., & Glasgow, R. E. (2018). Qualitative approaches to use of the RE-AIM framework: rationale and methods. BMC Health Services Research. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-2938-8
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.