Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implementation science and health services outcomes research each focus on many constructs that are likely interrelated. Both fields would be informed by increased understanding of these relationships. However, there has been little to no investigation of the relationships between implementation outcomes and service outcomes, despite general acknowledgement that both types of outcomes are important in the pathway to individual and population health outcomes. Given the lack of objective data about the links between implementation and service outcomes, an initial step in elucidating these relationships is to assess perceptions of these relationships among researchers and practitioners in relevant fields. The purpose of this paper is to assess perceived relationships between Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework outcomes and service outcomes, testing five a priori hypotheses about which perceived relationships may be strongest. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was administered to a convenience sample of implementation scientists, health services researchers, and public health and medical practitioners from a variety of settings. Respondents provided information on their discipline, training, practice and research settings, and levels of experience in health service outcomes research, implementation science, and the RE-AIM framework. Next, they rated perceived relationships between RE-AIM and service outcomes. Repeated measures analysis of variance were used to test a priori hypotheses. Exploratory analyses assessed potential differences in mean ratings across groups of respondents categorized by discipline, setting, and levels of implementation science, health services, and RE-AIM experience. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 259 respondents, most of whom were employed in academic and medical settings. The majority were doctoral-level researchers and educators or physicians. Reported levels of experience with implementation research, health services research, and the RE-AIM framework varied. The strongest perceived relationships overall were between Implementation/Fidelity and Effectiveness (as a service outcome); Maintenance and Efficiency; Reach and Equity; Adoption and Equity; Implementation/Adaptation and Patient-Centeredness; Adoption and Patient-Centeredness; and Implementation/Fidelity and Safety. All but one of the a priori hypotheses were supported. No significant differences in ratings of perceived relationships were observed among subgroups of respondents. CONCLUSIONS: This study is an initial step in developing conceptual understanding of the links between implementation outcomes, health services outcomes, and health outcomes. Our findings on perceived relationships between RE-AIM and services outcomes suggest some areas of focus and identify several areas for future research to advance both implementation science and health services research toward common goals of improving health outcomes.