# Presentation: 662824

## RE-AIM Survey of BCC 

**Behavior Change Consortium (BCC)**
**July 20-21, 2000**

**Representativeness & Translation****Working Group for BCC**

## Purpose 

**Assess feasibility of cross-site collaboration **
**Develop an evaluation framework to:**
**Transition from research to program application and dissemination **
**Estimate potential public health impact of behavioral methods**

## Framework Development

**Dimensions of Importance to BCC:**
**Reach**
**Implementation **
**Efficacy/Effectiveness**
**Adoption**
**Maintenance**

## REACH

**How Representative Study Participants are of Target Population --**
**87 % of sites will estimate % of targeted individuals that participate**
**79% will compare characteristics of participants & nonparticipants**
**87% will ask reasons for non-participation**
**71% recruiting from a defined population **

## IMPLEMENTATION

**Intervention Integrity or Fidelity --**
**100% document tx received by individual**
**100% document tx delivered by staff**
**93% calculate “dose” or % of tx participation**
**100% characteristics of high vs low level participation compared**
**86% analyze interventionist characteristics related to outcome**

## EFFICACY/EFFECTIVENESS

**Short-term Impact/Outcomes on Participants --**
**Primary outcome measured as**
**38% only as continuous**
**23% only as categorical **
**38% reported as continuous and categorical**
**100% multiple, objective outcome measures**
**93% document negative outcomes (e.g., QoL, pain & discomfort)**
**64% will report cost, 53% economic analyses**

## ADOPTION

**Participation and Representativeness of Settings  --**
**Settings targeted for adoption of intervention**
**38% clinics or hospitals****	****     -15% schools **
**15% work sites****	****	****     - 8% non-profits   **
**38% will estimate % of targeted settings that participate**
**31% will compare characteristics of participating & nonparticipating settings**
**46% formative assessment of desirable intervention features to program adoptees**

## ADOPTION

**Participation and Representativeness of Settings  --**
**Estimating “generalizability” of settings appears problematic - Only 9 responses**
**Eligibility (Inclusion) of settings in local area:**
**56% All       - 33% at 80-90%     - 11% at 25%**
**77% will disseminate tx if successful (23% DK)**

## MAINTENANCE

**Long-term Outcomes / Continued Tx Delivery to Setting**
**Follow-up Assessments**
**54% at 6-mo     - 83% at 12-mo     - 36% at 24-mo**
**54% will offer revised tx protocol to setting **
**23% follow program after $ terminated **
**69% provide consultation to settings who wish to continue tx**

## COLLABORATION

**Working Together Towards a Common Goal**** --**
**45-50% agreeable to additional data collection on Reach, Adoption, Maintenance (25-33% unsure) **
**Less agreeable to additional cost data **
**93% receive information from exemplar sites **
**100% share data for BCC reports**

## NEXT STEPS

**Refine and finalize evaluation framework**
**Solicit support from investigators to contribute information to the framework**
**Focus on goal to improve practice, program dissemination and maintenance of innovations**