Cited by 1,029Health Policy Implementation ScienceEvaluation and Performance AssessmentPublic Health Policies and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The RE-AIM Framework: A Systematic Review of Use Over Time

Open access
Gaglio, Bridget, Shoup, Jo Ann, Glasgow, Russell E.·2013·American Journal of Public Health

Abstract

We provided a synthesis of use, summarized key issues in applying, and highlighted exemplary applications in the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. We articulated key RE-AIM criteria by reviewing the published literature from 1999 to 2010 in several databases to describe the application and reporting on various RE-AIM dimensions. After excluding nonempirical articles, case studies, and commentaries, 71 articles were identified. The most frequent publications were on physical activity, obesity, and disease management. Four articles reported solely on 1 dimension compared with 44 articles that reported on all 5 dimensions of the framework. RE-AIM was broadly applied, but several criteria were not reported consistently.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2105/ajph.2013.301299

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 31 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Green LW, 2005, Health Program and Planning: An Educational and Ecolgocial Approach
  2. Glasgow RE, Transl Behav Med
  3. Glasgow RE, 2006, Am J Manag Care, 12, 137

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 901–1,000 of 1,000

Metadata

Authors
Gaglio, B., Shoup, J. A., & Glasgow, R. E.
Affiliations
Kaiser Permanente (US)
Venue
American Journal of Public Health
Published
2013-06
Volume
103
Issue
6
Pages
e38-e46
ISSN
  • 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0048
OpenAlex
W2028764578
Cited by
1,029
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 73 · 2025: 104 · 2024: 107 · 2023: 84 · 2022: 131 · 2021: 139 · 2020: 109 · 2019: 87 · 2018: 61 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 7
FWCI
3.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Health Research Board
  • National Cancer Institute
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Public Health Policies and Education
Keywords
RE-AIM framework, implementation research, REACH regulation, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance, physical activity interventions, obesity intervention, reporting consistency
MeSH terms
Health Promotion, Humans, Program Evaluation

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