Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article¹ examines the RE-AIM evaluation framework, first expounded by Glasgow, Vogt and Boles (1999) as an approach that can establish the public health impact of a health promotion program. The article presents the practical application of RE-AIM in evaluation of multi-project, multi-setting health promotion programs, illustrated by the evaluation of three statewide programs: a three-year older adult health promotion program, a three-year diabetes prevention program, and a one-year health promotion program in public sector aged care, all set in Victoria, funded by the Department of Human Services. It considers how the RE-AIM approach can be employed to provide insights into real-world program domains of interest to funders, policymakers and health promotion practitioners that are frequently overlooked in conventional impact evaluations. The article concludes that RE-AIM is an adaptable, easy-to-use evaluation approach suited to multi-project program evaluations that can be used in a range of settings and sectors.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

DHAC 2000, Commonwealth, State and Territory Strategy on Healthy Ageing, Department of Health and Aged Care, Canberra.

Dzewaltowski

D.A.

, Estabrooks

P.S.

, Klesges

L.M.

, Bull

S.S.

, & Glasgow

R.E.

2004,’ Behaviour change interventions research in community settings: how generalizable are the results?’, Health Promotion International, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 235–245.

Funnell

1997, ‘Program logic: an adaptable tool for designing and evaluating programs’, Evaluation News & Comment, vol. 6, no. 1, July, pp. 5–17.

Garrard

, Lewis

, Keleher

, Tunny

, Burke

, Harper

, & Round

2004, Planning for healthy communities: reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes through healthier environments and lifestyles, Department of Human Services, Melbourne.

Glasgow

, Vogt

, & Boles

1999, ‘Evaluating the impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework’, American Journal of Public Health, vol. 89, no. 9, pp. 1322–1327.

Glasgow

R.E.

, Bull

S.S.

, Gillette

, Klesges

L.M.

, & Dzewaltowski

D.A.

2002, ‘Behaviour change intervention research in health care settings: a review of recent reports, with emphasis on external validity, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 62–69.

Hawe

, King

, Noort

, Jordens

, & Lloyd

2000, Indicators to help with capacity building in health promotion, <http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/pubs/i/pdf/capbuild.pdf>.

NHMRC 1997, Acting on Australia's weight: a strategic plan for the prevention of overweight and obesity, National Health and Medical Research Council, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

NHMRC 2004, Dietary guidelines for Australian adults, National Health and Medical Research Council, <http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/dietsyn.htm>.

10.

Nutbeam

2003, ‘How does evidence influence public health policy? Tackling health inequalities in England’, Health Promotion Journal of Australia, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 154–158.

11.

Rogers

, Veale

, & Weller

1999, Linking general practice with population health, National Information Service, Department of General Practice, Flinders University, South Australia.

12.

VicHealth 1999, Mental Health Promotion Plan Foundation document: 1999-2002, Melbourne.

Targeting what matters in health promotion evaluation

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References