Optimising the implementation of digital-supported interventions for the secondary prevention of heart disease: a systematic review using the RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework
Creators: name: de Moel-Mandel, Caroline
name: Lynch, Christopher
name: Issaka, Ayuba
name: Braver, Justin
name: Zisis, Georgios
name: Carrington, Melinda
name: Oldenburg, Brian
Publisher: name: La Trobe
Year: 2023
Subjects: classificationCode: 4206
subject: Public health
classificationCode: 4203
subject: Health services and systems

description: BackgroundmHealth technologies are now widely utilised to support the delivery of secondary prevention programs in heart disease. Interventions with mHealth included have shown a similar efficacy and safety to conventional programs with improvements in access and adherence. However, questions remain regarding the successful wider implementation of digital-supported programs. By applying the Reach-Effectiveness-Adoption-Implementation-Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to a systematic review and meta-analysis, this review aims to evaluate the extent to which these programs report on RE-AIM dimensions and associated indicators.MethodsThis review extends our previous systematic review and meta-analysis that investigated the effectiveness of digital-supported programs for patients with coronary artery disease. Citation searches were performed on the 27 studies of the systematic review to identify linked publications that reported data for RE-AIM dimensions. All included studies and, where relevant, any additional publications, were coded using an adapted RE-AIM extraction tool. Discrepant codes were discussed amongst reviewers to gain consensus. Data were analysed to assess reporting on indicators related to each of the RE-AIM dimensions, and average overall reporting rates for each dimension were calculated.ResultsSearches found an additional nine publications. Across 36 publications that were linked to the 27 studies, 24 (89%) of the studies were interventions solely delivered at home. The average reporting rates for RE-AIM dimensions were highest for effectiveness (75%) and reach (67%), followed by adoption (54%), implementation (36%) and maintenance (11%). Eleven (46%) studies did not describe relevant characteristics of their participants or of staff involved in the intervention; most studies did not describe unanticipated consequences of the intervention; the ongoing cost of intervention implementation and maintenance; information on intervention fidelity; long-term follow-up outcomes, or program adaptation in other settings.ConclusionsThrough the application of the RE-AIM framework to a systematic review we found most studies failed to report on key indicators. Failing to report these indicators inhibits the ability to address the enablers and barriers required to achieve optimal intervention implementation in wider settings and populations. Future studies should consider alternative hybrid trial designs to enable reporting of implementation indicators to improve the translation of research evidence into routine practice, with special consideration given to the long-term sustainability of program effects as well as corresponding ongoing costs.