Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) provides an explanation of and resources for those wanting to apply the RE-AIM framework. The RE-AIM framework is designed to enhance the quality, speed, and public health impact of efforts to translate research into practice in five steps:

  • Reach your intended target population
  • Effectiveness or efficacy
  • Adoption by target settings or institutions
  • Implementation, consistency of delivery of intervention
  • Maintenance of intervention effects in individuals and settings over time

Formative Evaluation Information

Baranowski T, Cerin E, Baranowski J. Steps in the design, development and formative evaluation of obesity prevention-related behavior change trials. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2009 Jan 21;6:6.

Newes-Adeyi G, Helitzer DL, Caulfield LE, Bronner Y. Theory and practice: Applying the ecological model to formative research for a WIC training program in New York StateHealth Educ Res. 2000 Jun;15(3):283-91.

Gittelsohn J, Steckler A, Johnson CC, Pratt C, Grieser M, Pickrel J, Stone EJ, Conway T, Coombs D, Staten LK. Formative research in school and community-based health programs and studies: "state of the art" and the TAAG approach. Health Educ Behav. 2006 Feb;33(1):25-39.

Strolla LO, Gans KM, Risica PM. Using qualitative and quantitative formative research to develop tailored nutrition intervention materials for a diverse low-income audienceHealth Educ Res. 2006 Aug;21(4):465-76.

Process Evaluation Information

Baranowski T, Stables G. Process evaluations of the 5-a-day projects. Health Educ Behav. 2000 Apr;27(2):157-66.

Leeman J, Sommers J, Vu M, Jernigan J, Payne G, Thompson D, Heiser C, Farris R, Ammerman A. An evaluation framework for obesity prevention policy interventions. Prev Chronic Dis. 2012;9:E120.

Cognitive Interviewing

Carbone ET, Campbell MK, Honess-Morreale L. Use of cognitive interview techniques in the development of nutrition surveys and interactive nutrition messages for low-income populations. J Am Diet Assoc. 2002;102(5):690–6.