Skip to main content

Table 1 Results applied to the RE-AIM framework

From: A single-site pilot implementation of a novel trauma training program for prehospital providers in a resource-limited setting

DimensionQuantitative measures  
IndexDataData qualityDifficulty of collectionMissing dataKey feasibility
index
Reach
(Did we reach the target audience?)
Participating learners (%)^92/109 = 84%++++RarelyYes
Effectiveness
(Individual level outcomes resulting from the program.)
Change in providers’ knowledge scores (post − pre = difference, %)52% − 6% = 46%++++Rarely-
Change in providers’ skills scores (post − pre = difference, %)39% − 12% = 27%++++Rarely-
Change in providers’ self-efficacy ratings (post − pre = difference, %)42% − 21% = 21%+++Rarely-
Improved quality noted in 5 item core bundle of care (%)$3/5 = 60%++++OftenYes
Clinically improved patients’ shock indices (%)38% − 28% = 10%++++Occasional-
Learner evaluations with satisfaction score ≥ 7 out of 10 (%)485/526 = 92%+++++RarelyYes
Facilitator evaluations with mean satisfaction scores ≥ 7 out of 10145/156 = 93%+++++RarelyYes
Adoption
(Indications that stakeholders and users within the institution will adopt this program.)
Participating facilitators (%)10/12 = 83%++++RarelyYes
Facilitators surveyed who would participate again (%)5/6 = 83%+++NoneYes
EMS leaders surveyed responding HEET is a good fit for WCG EMS (%)8/8 = 100%++++NoneYes
Implementation fidelity
(Did we implement the program as we intended?)
Proportion of content delivered as originally planned (%)*90%+++NoneYes
Number of training modules delivered as originally planned (%)*6/8 = 75%+++RarelyYes
Proportion of trainings starting with 15 min of intended (%)127/164 = 77%+++OccasionallyYes
Proportion of sessions (trainings & evals) lasting 15 min or less (%)131/164 = 80%+++OccasionallyYes
Average of key implementation feasibility indices (SD)=83% (SD = 10.3)   
Average of all RE-AIM implementation indices (SD) =68% (SD = 27.7)   
  1. K-A-S knowledge-attitudes-self-efficacy, WCG Western Cape Government, SD standard deviation
  2. ^Learner participation defined by those completing ≥ 75% of training modules. $Learner and facilitator patient charts were included in clinical outcomes analyses. *Index that was subjectively determined through conversation with implementation team. +Compare mean return rate of forms in first 2 modules versus last 2 weeks of implementation
  3. Data quality: + is low; ++ is average; +++ is high. Difficulty of data collection: + is easy; ++ is moderate; +++ is difficult