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 denominator

Registration survey

Eligibility screening

Organisational data

3. Characteristics of participants compared with nonparticipants; to local sample

Organisational data

Baseline survey

4. Use of qualitative methods to understand recruitment

Week 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 goal

n/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 group

Participant tracking data

Email correspondence

Baseline survey data

Monthly survey data

10. Use of qualitative methods/data to understand outcomes

Week 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 data

Email correspondence

14. Use of qualitative methods to understand setting level adoption

Liaison 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 participate

Management data

17. Characteristics of staff participants vs nonparticipating staff or typical staff

Management data

18. Use of qualitative methods to understand staff participation/staff level adoption

n/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—time

Study 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 implementation

Week 12 survey feedback

Participant focus groups

Maintenance—individual level

The 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-up

Liaison 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 model

Liaison interviews

Email correspondence

34. Use of qualitative methods data to understand setting level institutionalization

Liaison interviews