Skip to main content

Table 1 RE-AIM Criteria, definitions and data sources

From: Process evaluation of a workplace-based health promotion and exercise cluster-randomised trial to increase productivity and reduce neck pain in office workers: a RE-AIM approach

Criteria [13]Data source
Reach
Definition: the number, proportion and representativeness (age, gender, income) of individuals who registered their interest in participating in the study and were still enrolled at the point of randomisation, compared to those who were invited to participate (recruitment pool).
1. Exclusion criteria (% excluded or characteristics)Study protocol
Consort Flow
2. Percentage of individuals who participate, based on valid denominatorRegistration survey
Eligibility screening
Organisational data
3. Characteristics of participants compared with nonparticipants; to local sampleOrganisational data
Baseline survey
4. Use of qualitative methods to understand recruitmentWeek 12 survey feedback
Participant focus groups
Effectiveness
Definition: the impact of the intervention on primary (health-related productivity loss) and secondary (neck pain) outcomes, as well as other outcome measures collected.
5. Measure of primary outcome
Productivity: health-related productivity loss expressed in days (per 28 days).
Neck pain: self-reported neck pain in the past 7 days on a scale of 0–9.
Participant surveys
• Health and Productivity Questionnaire [15]
• Neck pain [16]
6. Measure of primary outcome relative to public health goaln/a
7. Measure of broader outcomes or use of multiple criteria (e.g. measure of quality of life or potential negative outcome)To be reported separately
8. Measure of robustness across subgroups (e.g. moderation analyses)Participant surveys
• Health and Productivity Questionnaire [15]
• Neck pain [16]
9. Measure of short-term attrition (%) and differential rates by patient characteristics or treatment groupParticipant tracking data
Email correspondence
Baseline survey data
Monthly survey data
10. Use of qualitative methods/data to understand outcomesWeek 12 survey feedback
Participant focus groups
Adoption—setting level
Definition: the absolute number, proportion and representativeness of organisations that committed to participation in the study compared to those who were approached and did not participate
11. Setting exclusions (% or reasons or both)Study protocol
12. Percentage of settings approached that participate (valid denominator)Email correspondence
Gatekeeper approval letters
13. Characteristics of settings participating (both comparison and intervention) compared with either [1] nonparticipants or [2] some relevant resource dataEmail correspondence
14. Use of qualitative methods to understand setting level adoptionLiaison interviews
Adoption—staff level
Definition: the absolute number, proportion and representativeness of intervention agents (research staff) that committed to participation in the study compared to those who were approached and did not participate
15. Staff exclusions (% or reasons or both)Management data
16. Percent of staff offered that participateManagement data
17. Characteristics of staff participants vs nonparticipating staff or typical staffManagement data
18. Use of qualitative methods to understand staff participation/staff level adoptionn/a
Implementation
Definition: the extent to which the intervention was implemented in accordance with the study protocol [9], as well as its consistency across organisations and over the intervention period. Implementation was examined from three perspectives: the research team; the participants; and the participating organisations.
19. Percent of perfect delivery or calls completed (e.g., fidelity)
Study-specific definitions:
Participant adherence to EET and EHP sessions during the intervention and maintenance period using “predicted total adherence” [10] to supervised and unsupervised training sessions during the intervention period and online survey questions from 12 weeks to 12 months
Organisational compliance with communication strategy and provision of suitable, consistent space
Online surveys: Adherence question: “How often have you participated in the exercise training during the last 4 weeks?” (EET participants), or “How often have you practiced healthier lifestyle changes during the last 4 weeks?” (EHP participants). Participants were grouped into three categories: regular adherence (at least once a week), irregular adherence (at least twice a month), and no adherence.
Workstation assessments
Session facilitator records
Exercise training diaries
Email correspondence
Project coordinator records
20. Adaptations made to intervention during study (not fidelity)Project coordinator records
21. Cost of intervention—timeStudy protocol
Project coordinator records (all costs adjusted using the relevant consumer price index (CPI) category [17, 18] to June 2015, the date of the last intake.)
22. Cost of intervention—money
Study-specific definitions:
Costs calculated from an employer’s perspective
Project coordinator records
Baseline surveys (salary costs)
23. Consistency of implementation across staff/time/settings/subgroups (not about differential outcomes, but process)Session facilitator records
Exercise training diaries
Email correspondence
Project coordinator records
Online surveys of age, gender, body mass index, health-related quality of life [19], education level, occupational category, income, computer use, health, neck pain [16], job strain [20], exercise stage of change [21], exercise self-efficacy [22], psychological distress [23], physical activity levels [24], or workstation quality.
24. Use of qualitative methods to understand implementationWeek 12 survey feedback
Participant focus groups
Maintenance—individual levelThe study’s primary outcomes were reported at week 12 and 12 months. No data collection occurred after 12 months, so individual-level maintenance could not be reported (criteria 25–30)
Maintenance—setting level
Definition: the extent to which intervention components were implemented in participating organisations after the study period. Interviews were conducted with onsite liaisons from four organisations to understand the factors affecting maintenance
31. If program is still ongoing at 6 months post-treatment follow-upLiaison interviews
Project manager records
Email correspondence
32. If and how program was adapted long-term (which elements retained after program completed)Liaison interviews
Project manager records
Email correspondence
33. Some measure/discussion of alignment to organization mission or sustainability of business modelLiaison interviews
Email correspondence
34. Use of qualitative methods data to understand setting level institutionalizationLiaison interviews