Front. Health Serv. Frontiers in Health Services Front. Health Serv. 2813-0146 Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/frhs.2026.1637060 Original Research Application of implementation science frameworks to a community-based healthy eating and activity intervention: a cross-sectional analysis TabakRachel G. 1 *Formal analysisInvestigationWriting – review & editingSupervisionWriting – original draftMethodologyConceptualizationFunding acquisition SchwarzCynthia D. 1Writing – review & editingSupervisionProject administration Haire-JoshuDebra 1Writing – review & editingFunding acquisitionSupervisionMethodology WangJinli 2Writing – review & editingFormal analysisData curationMethodology GilbertAmanda 1Writing – review & editingMethodologyConceptualization Steger-MayKaren 2Writing – review & editingMethodologySupervisionData curation School of Public Health, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States Correspondence: Rachel G. Tabak rtabak@wustl.edu 18022026 2026 61637060 28052025 24112025 19012026 © 2026 Tabak, Schwarz, Haire-Joshu, Wang, Gilbert and Steger-May. 2026Tabak, Schwarz, Haire-Joshu, Wang, Gilbert and Steger-Mayhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. Introduction

To contribute to the growing literature applying implementation science frameworks, this study utilized the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) frameworks. Our objectives were to (1) describe surveys used to assess CFIR context and RE-AIM implementation outcomes and (2) explore correlations between constructs within and across the frameworks in a community-based home-visiting organization.

Methods

This cross-sectional, baseline secondary analysis was conducted within a cluster-randomized trial partnered with parents as teachers (PAT), a national home-visiting, community-based organization. Guided by CFIR and RE-AIM, parent educators (provider level: seven scales, 26 items) and one leader per site (organization level: 11 scales, 56 items) completed surveys online before beginning the study. Standardized Cronbach coefficient alphas were calculated to reflect internal consistency reliability and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to reflect the agreement among parent educators within sites. Relationships between contextual factors (CFIR), antecedent outcomes (CFIR), and RE-AIM outcomes were calculated using Pearson correlations.

Results

A total of 271 parent educators and 26 site leaders completed the demographic survey. Most parent educators (72.5%) were white and a third of parent educators identified as Hispanic or Latino. Alphas ranged from 0.70 to 0.92 and 0.47 to 0.95 for scales completed by parent educators and site leaders, respectively. There was limited agreement among parent educators within sites; ICCs ranged from 0 to 0.24. Correlations for constructs within CFIR and between CFIR context and CFIR antecedent outcomes were statistically significant, while few correlations with these constructs and those in RE-AIM were statistically significant.

Discussion

This study demonstrates the application of CFIR, CFIR outcomes addendum, and RE-AIM. Investigators can use these findings to inform future studies incorporating implementation science in nutrition and physical activity research and to examine theoretical relationships between constructs and frameworks.

 Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) implementation science frameworks community setting and healthy eating and activity National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute10.13039/100000050R01HL143360UG3/UH3HL162970National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases10.13039/100000062P30DK092950National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences10.13039/100006108UL1TR002345National Cancer Institute10.13039/100000054P30 CA091842The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This publication was made possible by grant number 1R01HL143360 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and grant number P30DK092950 from the NIDDK, both of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The Early Intervention to Promote Cardiovascular Health of Mothers and Children (ENRICH) program is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute under award number UG3/UH3HL162970, in collaboration with the Administration for Children and Families, Health Resources and Services Administration, with co-funding support from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, Office of Disease Prevention, and Office of Research on Women's Health. In addition, research reported in this publication was supported by the Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences through grant UL1TR002345 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) of the NIH, and by the Siteman Comprehensive Cancer Center and the NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA091842). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official view of the NIH. section-at-acceptanceImplementation Science Introduction

People experiencing the greatest social determinants of health-related barriers are often less connected to healthcare, meaning that access to healthy eating and physical activity interventions in clinical settings may not reach those who can benefit most (1–7). Extending health promotion interventions beyond healthcare settings is therefore critical to prevent chronic disease, such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes, at a population level (8, 9). Community settings (i.e., organizations outside clinical healthcare or public health agencies that influence the everyday lives of individuals) are ideal places to reach families with young children, meeting them where they live, work, learn, and play (10, 11). Given the reach/access of community-based interventions, it is important to ensure that their delivery is optimized. Implementation science provides methods and theories that assess contextual factors that are important for implementation (12–25). Implementation science emphasizes organizational and provider-level contextual factors, which increase the relevance of interventions embedded within organizations.

Frameworks from implementation science provide constructs that are important in understanding the context in which an intervention is implemented as well as the evaluation of implementation efforts (26–28). A commonly cited (27, 29–32) framework from implementation science is the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) (32–37). CFIR has been increasingly applied in community-based health promotion (18, 24, 38–40) to understand context (37) (e.g., leadership engagement, available resources, mission alignment), as well as antecedent outcomes (potential predictors of adoption or implementation), including the implementation climate (32–37). This framework is frequently combined with the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework (18, 32, 41–50), which supports evaluation of implementation outcomes (e.g., adoption) (42, 51–55), particularly in healthy eating and physical activity promotion research (24, 56). An important way to operationalize frameworks and move toward theorizing is through the measurement of their constructs and exploring potential relationships (26, 52, 57–60). Since many constructs central to implementation science frameworks involve the perceptions of individuals (e.g., providers) engaged in implementation, there have been calls to report on the use of survey-based assessments (58).

Most existing implementation science measures have been applied in clinical settings, which differ in important ways from community settings. Differences between clinical and community settings include funding streams, types of staff, and physical spaces (9). Even outside of clinic care, most interventions in community settings have been studied in schools. For example, a review by Spiga et al. found that of 172 studies reviewed, only 15 were conducted in community settings and eight were conducted at home, whereas 111 studies were conducted in schools (61). Other organizations outside of clinical settings (e.g., home visiting organizations, social service agencies, and housing authorities) differ in important ways from schools in their heterogeneous structures and staffing. This leaves a gap in measurement in community organizations. To rigorously assess implementation context and outcomes, researchers have developed survey-based quantitative measures, which can be used in community-based healthy eating and activity promotion studies (62). Empirical use of such measures is needed to build an understanding of the internal consistency of the measures and the extent to which community-providers agree on measures of implementation context and outcomes within their community-based sites (15, 16, 63). Furthermore, applying frameworks by measuring constructs and testing relationships in community-based studies is essential to developing a generalizable understanding of implementation outside the clinical setting (28, 56, 64).

This study presents a secondary analysis of baseline data from an ongoing cluster-randomized trial testing the Healthy Eating and Active Living Taught at Home (HEALTH) (blinded trial registration) intervention across home-visiting sites nationwide. Specifically, this study uses baseline data from a nationwide home-visiting trial to (1) describe survey measures of CFIR and RE-AIM constructs (including reliability and within-site agreement) and (2) explore correlations between these constructs to advance understanding of implementation in community-based organizations.

 Materials and methods Design and setting of the study

This is a cross-sectional, secondary analysis of baseline data from a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial testing the HEALTH intervention, conducted between 2018 and 2025. The trial was conducted in partnership with parents as teachers (PAT) (65), a national home-visiting, community-based organization. HEALTH is an evidence-based intervention (66) that embeds healthy eating and active living content into the PAT model. PAT is delivered through sites in all 50 U.S. states, located in a variety of settings outside of clinical care, such as social service organizations and educational settings (e.g., early childhood organizations). The providers delivering PAT are parent educators (PEs), who are trained to deliver the PAT curriculum, reside in the communities they serve, and maintain relationships with families over time. A total of 43 PAT sites across the country participated in this study. Randomization to the HEALTH training curriculum—to support implementation of the HEALTH intervention or to usual care PAT—occurred at the site level. PEs at sites randomized to the HEALTH arm received training in delivering the HEALTH curriculum to the families they serve; PEs at sites randomized to usual care continued to deliver PAT as usual. The trial considered three levels: mother, parent educator (provider), and PAT site (organization). This analysis focused on two levels of analysis: PEs (assessed through a PE survey) and PAT sites (assessed through a site leader survey).

 Participants and procedures

PEs and site leaders completed a consent process with study team members by phone. Survey measures were completed by PEs (to collect provider level) and site leaders (to collect data about their site, representing the organization level) via online surveys in English using REDCap (67). Respondents received $15 remuneration for completing the survey. For the current analysis, we combined the survey respondents for the HEALTH and Usual Care groups since these data were collected prior to detailed study-related training. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the University Human Research Protection Office (#201810157).

 Measures

The overall study was guided by the CFIR (to understand contextual factors that impact implementation and implementation outcomes) and RE-AIM (implementation outcomes). These frameworks were used to guide the selection of measures throughout the development, conduct, and analysis of the trial. Existing survey measures were identified for relevant constructs for each framework, based on the literature and the perspectives of PEs and site leaders (42, 68–70). These surveys were initially employed and refined in a small study incorporating qualitative and quantitative methods with PEs (n = 6) and site leaders (n = 10) (68). Items refer to both current PAT practices (e.g., Inner setting culture: Our site encourages everyone to share ideas) and prospective HEALTH adoption (e.g., Adoption: It was intuitively appealing). A complete list of the scales used to measure each construct, the individual questions, and the response options for each scale are described in Supplementary Table 1.

 Statistical methods

Scale scores were calculated as the mean of the items in the scale, requiring non-missing data for each item in the scale. Means with standard deviations (SD) or medians with interquartile range and ranges were reported for each scale. Standardized Cronbach’s coefficient alpha is a measure of reliability, representing the internal consistency of the items within the scale (71). We categorized the internal consistency reliability as follows: Poor Cronbach's alpha < 0.50; Minimal/Emerging Cronbach's alpha values =0.50–0.69; Adequate Cronbach's alpha values of =0.70–0.79; Good Cronbach's alpha values of =0.80–0.89; and Excellent Cronbach's alpha values of ≥0.90 (72).

Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) (73) were calculated to reflect the agreement of PEs within a site and were calculated for the derived scale scores. Sites with fewer than three PE respondents were excluded from the ICC analyses. ICC (1,1) for single measurements was estimated using a one-way analysis of variance with a random effect for respondents. We selected this type of ICC because the unit of analysis was the response from each PE (not of a mean across PEs), and a different set of PEs responded for each site, who we considered randomly selected from a larger population of PEs for the site. ICCs reflected the reliability of the individual PE responses and required data from the same number of PEs for each site. As such, we randomly selected two PEs from each site for 30 iterations, so that ICCs were reported for 30 replicate pairings of two PEs. PEs with missing scale scores were excluded. There is no rule to define “acceptable” agreement, as this depends upon the use of the measurements and how much agreement is expected from PEs within a site (74); however, the following standards were applied: virtually none to slight reliability ≤0.40; fair reliability = 0.41–0.60; moderate reliability = 0.61–0.80; and substantial reliability = 0.81–1.0.

Supplementary Figure 1 (Supplementary File 2) illustrates the conceptual framework integrating CFIR context constructs, CFIR antecedent assessments, and RE-AIM implementation outcomes to guide the relational analysis. Correlations between contextual factors (CFIR), antecedent outcomes (CFIR), and RE-AIM outcomes were analyzed using Pearson correlations. Bivariate plots were examined to assess linearity. Correlations were considered significant if the p-value was less than.05. All data analyses were conducted using SAS software, version 9.4 for Windows (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

 Results

Of the 43 sites enrolled in the study, 39 sites had baseline PE and site leader data (Table 1). Across both groups, 284 PEs consented to participate, 271 PEs responded to the baseline survey, and 269 PEs completed the demographic survey form. Among site leaders, 30 consented to participate, and 26 responded to the baseline survey and completed the demographic survey. On average, PEs were 39.4 years old (SD = 12.2), while the mean age for site leaders was 45.7 years (SD = 9.6). Most were white (72.5% for PEs and 80.8% for site leaders) and a third of the PEs and 11.5% of site leaders identified as Hispanic or Latino. The average number of years PEs had worked at their site was lower (4.6, SD 5.5) than for site leaders (11.0, SD,8.2).

Baseline demographics for parent educators (provider level) and site leaders (organization level) who completed baseline surveys as part of a trial testing the effect of the HEALTH intervention.

Characteristic Parent educators Site leaders
Number consented 284 30
Number (%) who responded to the baseline survey 271 (95) 26 (87)
Number who completed the baseline demographic form 269b 26c
Age (years), mean (SD) 39.4 (12.2) 45.7 (9.6)
Gender, n (%)
 Male 1 (0.4) 0 (0.0)
 Female 268 (99.6) 26 (100.0)
Race, n (%)
 Black or African American 27 (10.0) 3 (11.5)
 White 195 (72.5) 21 (80.8)
 Othera 11 (4.1) 0 (0)
 Unknown, not reporting race 36 (13.4) 2 (7.7)
Ethnicity, n (%)
 Hispanic or Latino 90 (33.5) 3 (11.5)
 Not Hispanic or Latino 172 (63.9) 22 (84.6)
 Unknown, not reporting ethnicity 7 (2.6) 1 (3.8)
Highest grade of school completed, n (%)
 Less than high school/some high school/high school graduate or GED/some college, n (%) 42 (15.6) 0 (0)
 College or university graduate/technical or vocational school 186 (69.1) 12 (46.1)
 Graduate or professional school 41 (15.2) 14 (53.8)
Years working at site, mean (SD) (n = 265) 4.6 (5.5) 11 (8.2)
Years working in current position, mean (SD) (n = 265) 4.2 (5.3) 7.2 (7.4)

n, sample size; SD, standard deviation.

Other race includes American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and more than one race.

The sample size (n) for a characteristic for parent educator is also reported if it is less than 269.

The sample size (n) for a characteristic item for site leader is also reported if it is less than 26.

 Reliability (Cronbach's alpha) and agreement (ICCs): CFIR context—provider and organization levels

A complete list of the scales, individual questions making up these scales, and citations for the source of the measure is provided, with the CFIR constructs they are measuring, in Table 2. Based on the alphas, most scales were Adequate to Good. Only two scales reached the level of ≥0.90 or Excellent, none were Poor, and only one was Minimal/Emerging (72). For measures at the site level, alphas for nearly all scales ranged between 0.80 and 0.89 (Good), with one scale <0.50 (Minimal/Emerging). At the PE level, two alphas were ≥0.90 (Excellent), while one had an alpha of 0.76 (Adequate). When considering agreement between PEs within PAT sites, the ICCs for all scales assessing CFIR constructs were very small (range: 0–0.2, Table 2), suggesting substantial variation in CFIR contextual factors across PEs within sites.

Descriptive statistics of CFIR (the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research) implementation context scales among parent educators (provider level) and site leaders (organization level) who completed baseline surveys as part of a trial testing the effect of the HEALTH intervention.a

Data level Measurements Standardized alphad
Individuals domain: innovation deliverers (provider level)
PE  PE characteristics: knowledge and beliefs about HEALTH (89) 0.76
1. I do not know what a Healthy Lifestyle curriculum is.b,c 0.81
2. I am aware of curricula which address healthy weight. 0.64
3. I can distinguish between different curricula which address healthy weight. 0.67
4. I know the status of healthy weight education in my site. 0.69
CFIR: Awareness Score: N = 267, Median=2.75, IQR=(2.25, 3.25), Range=(1, 4), ICC=0.19
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree, 3 = somewhat agree, 4 = strongly agree
PE  PE characteristics: self-efficacy (90, 91) 0.92
1. Parent educators at our site understand what is required in order to implement HEALTH as prescribed. 0.88
2. Parent educators at our site have a clear understanding of what is involved in order to fully implement HEALTH as prescribed. 0.88
3. Our site has the expertise needed in order to implement HEALTH as prescribed. 0.90
4. I am confident that I can implement HEALTH as prescribed at our site. 0.92
CFIR: Self-efficacy Score: N = 250, Median=5.5, IQR=(4.5, 6), Range=(1, 7), ICC=0.2
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 4 = neither agree or disagree, 5 = somewhat agree, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree
Inner setting domain (site/organization level)
SL  Culture (58) 0.81
1. People at all levels of our site openly talk about what is and is not working 0.79
2. Most people at our site are willing to change how they do things in response to feedback from others 0.79
3. It is hard to get things to change at our site 0.82
4. I can rely on the other people at our site to do their jobs well 0.76
5. Most of the people who work at our site seem to enjoy their work 0.78
6. Difficult problems are solved through face-to-face discussions at our site 0.81
7. People at our site regularly take time to reflect on how we do things 0.80
8. After trying something new, people at our site take time to think about how it worked 0.82
9. People at our site operate as a real team 0.76
CFIR: culture score: N = 26 Mean=4.24 SD = 0.38 Range=(3.67, 5)
1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly agree
SL  Culture: learning-centeredness (58) 0.83
1. People at our site regularly take time to consider ways to improve how we do things 0.80
2. People at our site actively seek new ways to improve how we do things 0.78
3. Our site encourages everyone to share ideas 0.84
4. Our site learns from its mistakes 0.79
5. When we experience a problem at our site, we make a serious effort to figure out what is really going on 0.77
CFIR: learning climate score: N = 26, median=4.4, IQR=(4, 4.6), Range=(3.6, 5)
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree
SL  Culture: deliver-centeredness: Leadership engagement (58) 0.86
6. Leadership at our site creates an environment where things can be accomplished 0.84
7. Site leadership promotes an environment that is an enjoyable place to work 0.76
8. Site leadership strongly supports site change efforts 0.77
5. The site leadership makes sure that we have the time and space necessary to discuss changes to improve implementation of HEALTH 0.88
CFIR: Leadership Engagement Score: N = 26, median=4.25, IQR=(4, 4.75), Range=(3.25, 5)
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree
SL  Available resources (58) 0.47
9. In general, when there is agreement that change needs to happen at our site we have the necessary support in terms of: budget or financial resources 0.50
10. In general, when there is agreement that change needs to happen at our site we have the necessary support in terms of: training 0.44
11. In general, when there is agreement that change needs to happen at our site we have the necessary support in terms of: staffing 0.49
6. The following are available to make HEALTH work at our site: equipment and materials 0.43
7. The following are available to make HEALTH work at our site: family awareness/need 0.35
8. The following are available to make HEALTH work at our site: intervention team. 0.29
CFIR: available resources score: N = 26, mean=3.6, SD = 0.42, range=(2.83, 4.5)
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree
Inner setting domain (provider level)
PE  Mission alignment (90, 91) 0.90
1. HEALTH fits well with the mission or overall goals of our site 0.87
2. HEALTH fits well with the treatment philosophy of our site 0.87
3. Our site is highly motivated to implement HEALTH 0.86
4. Our site is driven to implement HEALTH 0.87
RE-AIM: strategic fit score: N = 259, median=6, IQR=(5.25, 6.75), range=(1, 7) ICC=0
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 4 = neither agree or disagree, 5 = somewhat agree, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree
Innovation domain (site/organization level)
SL  Innovation relative advantage (76) 0.88
1. Using HEALTH is compatible with the parent educator activities in my site 0.86
2. I think that using HEALTH fits well with the way I like to work 0.84
7. Using HEALTH will enhance my effectiveness on the job 0.87
10. Using HEALTH will increase my ability to get funds for my site 0.89
11. Using HEALTH will increase the quality of PAT programs in my site 0.86
12. Using HEALTH will have no effect on family outcomesb 0.86
14. Even if PAT National Center did not encourage the use of HEALTH, I would like to implement HEALTH in my site 0.85
15. Overall, I find using HEALTH to be advantageous for my site 0.86
RE-AIM: relative advantage/compatibility score: N = 26, mean=4.05, SD = 0.5, range=(3.13, 4.75)
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree
SL  Innovation complexity (76) 0.82
3. I believe that using HEALTH would require my site to make substantial changes to our present programb 0.77
4. It will be difficult to train parent educators to implement HEALTHb 0.81
5. Overall, I believe that it will be complicated to implement HEALTHb 0.72
13. HEALTH requires more work than can be done with current fundingb 0.78
RE-AIM: complexity score: N = 26, mean=3.95, SD = 0.64, range=(3, 5)
1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree

PE, parent educators; SL, site leader; PAT, Parents as Teachers; HEALTH, Healthy Eating and Active Living Taught at Home; IQR, interquartile range defined as the 25th and 75th percentiles; N, sample size; SD, standard deviation; ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient.

For each domain, standardized Cronbach's alpha is reported for each scale since the variance of variables within a scale varies widely. Within each scale, standardized alpha by deleting the item is reported for each item followed by summary statistics for the CFIR scale score.

Questions were reversed coded to calculate Cronbach's alpha and derive summary score.

Question was not reverse coded in the reference paper. However, we reversed coded based on common sense.

Bolded values are the alpha for the scale consisting of all items; unbolded values are the alpha for the scale after deleting the corresponding item.

 Reliability (Cronbach's alpha): CFIR antecedent outcomes—organization level

A complete list of the scales and individual questions making up CFIR antecedent outcomes is provided in Table 3. Two scales measuring antecedent outcomes had alphas that were Excellent (>0.9), while the implementation climate scale had a Minimal/Emerging alpha (0.64).

Descriptive statistics of antecedent assessments scales among site leaders (organization level) who completed baseline surveys as part of a trial testing the effect of the HEALTH intervention.a

Data Level Measurements Standardized Alphab
SL Implementation climate (58) 0.64
1. Site staff are expected to help HEALTH meet its goal (i.e., promote healthy weight). 0.63
2. Site staff get the support they need to implement HEALTH. 0.63
3. Site staff get recognition for implementing HEALTH to promote healthy weight. 0.48
4. HEALTH to promote healthy weight is a top priority of our site. 0.54
CFIR: Implementation Climate Score: N = 26, mean=3.86, SD = 0.47, range=(3, 5)
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree
SL Change commitment (77) 0.91
1. People who work at our site are committed to implementing HEALTH 0.89
4. People who work at our site want to implement HEALTH 0.85
6. People who work at our site are determined to implement HEALTH 0.84
8. People who work at our site are motivated to implement HEALTH 0.94
CFIR: Change Commitment Score: N = 26, median = 4.625, IQR=(3.75, 5), range=(3, 5)
1 = disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree, 3 = neither agree or disagree, 4 = somewhat agree, 5 = agree
SL CFIR: change efficacy (77) 0.91
2. People who work at our site feel confident that they can keep track of progress in implementing HEALTH 0.88
3. People who work at our site feel confident that the organization can support people as they adjust to HEALTH 0.87
5. People who work at our site feel confident that they can handle the challenges that might arise in implementing HEALTH 0.86
7. People who work at our site feel confident that they can coordinate tasks so that HEALTH implementation goes smoothly 0.86
9. People who work at our site feel confident that they can manage the politics of implementing HEALTH 0.94
CFIR: Change efficacy score: N = 26, median=4.4, IQR=(3.8, 4.8), range=(3, 5)
1 = disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree, 3 = neither agree or disagree, 4 = somewhat agree, 5 = agree

SL, site leader; PAT, Parents as Teachers; HEALTH, Healthy Eating and Active Living Taught at Home; IQR, interquartile range and ranges; n, sample size.

Standardized Cronbach's Alpha is reported for each scale since the variance of variables within a construct varies widely. Within each scale, standardized alpha by deleting the item is reported for each item followed by summary statistics for the CFIR antecedent outcomes scale score.

Bolded values are the alpha for the scale consisting of all items; unbolded values are the alpha for the scale after deleting the corresponding item.

 Reliability (Cronbach's alpha) and agreement (ICCs): RE-AIM outcomes—provider and organization levels

A complete list of the scales and individual questions measuring the RE-AIM implementation outcomes constructs is provided in Table 4. At the PE level, the two scales assessing the Adoption constructs had alphas of 0.84 (Good) and 0.90 (Excellent) and one scale measuring Implementation/Acceptability had an alpha of 0.85 (Good). However, for the other Implementation/Acceptability scale, the alpha was only 0.70 (Adequate). At the site leader level, alphas for the implementation outcomes scales ranged from 0.66 to 0.95. For the measures assessing RE-AIM outcomes, the ICCs for the scales ranged from <0.01 to 0.24. Among these, the Implementation/Acceptability measures demonstrated greater, though still low, agreement (ICCs ≥ 0.10, Table 4).

Descriptive statistics of RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) implementation outcomes scales among parent educators (provider level) and site leaders (organization level) who completed baseline surveys as part of a trial testing the effect of the HEALTH intervention.a

Data Level Measurementsc Standardized Alphad
If you received training in a curriculum that was new to you, how likely would you be to adopt it if…
Adoption (78)
PE  Appeal 0.84
1. It was intuitively appealing? 0.81
2. It made sense to you? 0.76
6. It was being used by colleagues who were happy with it? 0.81
7. You felt you had enough training to use it correctly? 0.78
RE-AIM: Appeal Score: N = 266 Median=3 IQR=(2.5, 3.75) Range=(0, 4) ICC=0
PE Requirement (78) 0.90
3. It was required by your supervisor? 0.82
4. It was required by your site? 0.78
5. It was required by your state? 0.96
RE-AIM: Requirement Score: N = 268 Median=3 IQR=(2, 4) Range=(0, 4) ICC=0.03
SL Appeal (78) 0.66
1. It was intuitively appealing? 0.61
2. It made sense to you? 0.38
6. It was being used by colleagues who were happy with it? 0.70
7. You felt you had enough training to use it correctly? 0.61
RE-AIM: appeal score: N = 26, median=3.5, IQR=(3, 3.75), range=(2.25, 4)
SL Requirement (78) 0.95
3. It was required by your supervisor? 0.91
4. It was required by your site? 0.93
5. It was required by your state? 0.93
RE-AIM: Requirement Score: N = 26, median=4, IQR=(2, 4), Range=(0, 4)
Implementation/Acceptability
PE Open (78) 0.85
1. I like to use a new curriculum to help families. 0.80
2. I am willing to try a new curriculum even if I have to follow a manual. 0.77
4. I am willing to use a new and different curriculum developed by researchers. 0.81
RE-AIM: Openness Score: N = 268, Median=3, IQR=(2.67, 4), Range = (1, 4), ICC=0.24
PE Divergence (78) 0.70
3. I know better than academic researchers how to implement HEALTH for families.b 0.67
5. A research based curriculum is not useful.b 0.58
6. Experience working in the field is more important than using a manualized curriculum.b 0.72
7. I would not use a manualized curriculum.b 0.58
RE-AIM: Divergence Score: N = 265, median=3.25, IQR=(2.75, 3.75), range=(0, 4) ICC=0.13

PE, parent educators; SL, site leader; IQR, interquartile range and ranges; n, sample size ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient.

For each domain, standardized Cronbach's alpha statistics are reported for each scale since the variance of variables within a construct varies widely. Within each scale and for each group of participants, standardized alpha statistics by deleting the item are reported for each item followed by summary statistics for the RE-AIM scale score.

Questions were reversed coded to calculate Cronbach's alpha and derive summary score.

Response items for all items: 0 = not at all, 1 = to a slight extent, 2 = to a moderate extent, 3 = to a great extent, 4 = to a very great extent.

Bolded values are the alpha for the scale consisting of all items; unbolded values are the alpha for the scale after deleting the corresponding item.

 CFIR context and RE-AIM outcomes—provider level

Table 5 presents correlations between CFIR context and RE-AIM outcomes at the parent educator level. All correlations within CFIR context were statistically significant and greater than 0.3. Within RE-AIM domains, several were statistically significantly correlated, though the correlations were generally lower than within the CFIR context. The limited within-framework relationships suggest that the RE-AIM domains may be measuring more distinct factors, while those with CFIR may have more overlap. Looking across frameworks, several correlations were statistically significant. All three CFIR context measures were statistically significantly correlated with the RE-AIM implementation outcome. CFIR knowledge and beliefs about the intervention were significantly correlated with RE-AIM outcomes of adoption and implementation. These findings may suggest relationships between contextual determinants and implementation outcomes, as depicted in Supplementary Figure 1 (Supplementary File 2). However, all correlations were low in magnitude.

Correlations between measures of CFIR context constructs and RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) implementation outcomes among parent educators (provider level) who completed baseline surveys as part of a trial testing the effect of the HEALTH intervention.

Framework Domain/Construct CFIR context RE-AIM outcomes
Knowledge and beliefs about HEALTH Self-efficacy Mission alignment Adoption (appeal) Adoption (require) Implementation (openness) Implementation (divergence)
CFIR Context Knowledge and beliefs about HEALTH 1.0 0.46 0.34 0.044 −0.19 0.29 –0.24
Self-efficacy 1.0 0.51 0.15 –0.056 0.36 –0.16
Mission alignment 1.0 0.13 0.031 0.34 0.00
RE-AIM Outcomes Adoption (appeal) 1.0 0.38 0.39 –0.012
Adoption (require) 1.0 0.079 0.076
Implementation (openness) 1.0 –0.095
Implementation (divergence) 1.0

CFIR, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research; RE-AIM, Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM).

Bold indicates p < .05; light gray highlight is within-context correlations, dark gray highlighting is-within outcome correlations.

 CFIR context constructs, CFIR antecedent outcomes, and RE-AIM outcomes—organization level

At the site level (completed by one site leader at each site, Table 6), the correlations between the constructs within the CFIR framework ranged from 0.28 to 0.69, similar in magnitude to those observed at the PE level. All but three correlations were statistically significant. When exploring antecedent outcomes and RE-AIM, there were high statistically significant correlations within frameworks. As anticipated based on the CFIR outcomes addendum and Supplementary Figure 1 (Supplementary File 2), several measures of CFIR constructs (Leadership engagement, Available Resources, and Relative Advantage) were significantly associated with all three antecedent outcomes measures. Further, the Appeal measure of Adoption from the RE-AIM framework was statistically significantly correlated with all the measures of CFIR constructs, except for Innovation Complexity. However, the Require measure of Adoption was not significantly associated with any CFIR constructs. Finally, though the antecedent outcomes were associated with the measures of the CFIR constructs, the measures of the antecedent outcomes were not statistically significantly correlated with the measures of Adoption for RE-AIM. This contrasts with the relationships articulated in Supplementary Figure 1 (Supplemental File 2).

Correlations between measures of CFIR context constructs, CFIR antecedent assessments, and RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) implementation outcomes among site leaders (organization level) who completed baseline surveys as part of a trial testing the effect of the HEALTH intervention.

Framework Domain/Construct CFIR context Antecedent assessments RE: AIM outcomes
Culture Learning climate Leadership engagement Available resources Relative advantage Innovation complexity Implementation climate Change commitment Change efficacy Adoption (appeal) Adoption (require)
CFIR Context Culture 1 0.51 0.50 0.28 0.41 0.50 0.19 0.36 0.36 0.54 0.17
learning Climate 1 0.69 0.46 0.47 0.36 0.30 0.38 0.36 0.61 0.38
leadership Engagement 1 0.57 0.54 0.49 0.45 0.44 0.43 0.58 0.27
Available resources 1 0.49 0.37 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.10 -0.27
Relative advantage 1 0.50 0.56 0.67 0.63 0.46 -0.12
Innovation Complexity 1 0.017 0.38 0.51 0.36 -0.013
Antecedent Assessments implementation Climate 1 0.66 0.55 0.29 0.074
change Commitment 1 0.94 0.35 0.015
Change efficacy 1 0.26 -0.022
RE: AIM Outcomes Adoption (appeal) 1 0.67
Adoption (require) 1

CFIR, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research; RE-AIM, Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM).

Bold indicates p < .05; light gray highlight is within-context correlations, blue highlight is within-antecedent assessment correlation, dark gray highlight is within-outcome correlations.

 Discussion

This study applied implementation science frameworks (i.e., CFIR and RE-AIM), described survey measures used to assess the framework constructs, and explored correlations within and across the frameworks in a community-based home-visiting organization. Surveys to assess constructs from CFIR context, CFIR antecedent outcomes, and RE-AIM implementation outcomes include seven scales at the PE level and 11 scales at the site level. Most scales had alphas that demonstrated Good to Excellent internal consistency reliability (72), while low ICCs suggested limited agreement among PEs at a site (relative to between sites). At the PE level, there were consistently positive, statistically significant correlations within the surveys assessing the CFIR framework constructs, while correlations with most of the measures assessing RE-AIM domains (except for the openness measure of implementation) were low, not statistically significant, and inconsistent in direction. This was similar at the site level, which also found positive, statistically significant relationships between measures of CIFR context constructs and measures of CFIR antecedent outcomes.

These findings underscore the value of implementation science in enhancing the rigor of community-based healthy eating and activity research. Implementation science measures can help capture the complexities of implementation in settings often designed to address social determinants of health (e.g., education, employment), rather than health promotion content (10, 15, 75). Compared with prior studies, the internal consistency reliability of the CFIR context (58, 76), CFIR antecedent outcomes (58, 77), and RE-AIM outcomes (78–81) measures in the current sample was quite similar, with most scales achieving at least Good reliability (Cronbach's alpha ≥ 0.8). One notable exception was the low alpha for the Available Resources measure, and researchers may consider alternative measures for future work. These findings may be due to the items making up this scale. In the set of items, there are two stems “In general, when there is agreement that change needs to happen at our site we have the necessary support in terms of:” and “The following are available to make HEALTH work at our site:”. Such wording may lead participants to provide similar answers across items (82).

The low ICCs indicating limited agreement among PEs have several implications. First, limited agreement within sites suggests that contextual constructs (e.g., perceptions of the healthy eating and activity intervention) and implementation outcomes may reflect individual provider perspectives. This indicates that these constructs need to be measured at the provider level, rather than aggregating within a site. Further, reporting agreement among community-based providers within sites can inform the design of clustered studies (20), including design decisions about whether to assess implementation science constructs at the cluster (site) level. To our knowledge, no other studies have reported agreement among similar types of providers, limiting comparisons of the current findings.

While the current study found associations among measures assessing constructs within CFIR and between the measures of CFIR context and the measures of CFIR antecedent outcomes [which is suggested by the CFIR Outcomes Addendum (35)], it did not identify consistent, statistically significant associations between the measures of CFIR context and CFIR antecedent assessments and measures of the RE-AIM domains. The one exception was the openness measure of implementation (an RE-AIM domain) and each of the measures of CFIR contextual constructs, at the PE level. These findings contrast with the hypothesized relationships in Supplementary Figure 1 (Supplementary File 2) and highlight a limitation of relying on frameworks, which do not hypothesize relationships between constructs and domains (26). This is also somewhat different from the pattern that has been found in previous literature. For example, Wilcox et al. used the CFIR and RE-AIM frameworks to understand dissemination and implementation of a nutrition and physical activity intervention in churches in South Carolina. They found that constructs from the CFIR (e.g., relative advantage, relative priority, self-efficacy of implementers) predicted intervention sustainment (33, 51, 53, 83, 84). Similarly, work by Swindle et al. emphasized the importance of constructs such as organizational capacity and environmental support from the Dynamic Sustainability Framework (an implementation science framework) for sustaining adherence to nutrition and physical activity promotion program designed within early care and education settings (62, 85, 86). While the associations between CFIR context and implementation outcomes in the present study are associative and not predictive, these results contribute to the growing body of research suggesting that assessing constructs from implementation science frameworks across community-based settings can help build a generalizable understanding of implementation context and outcomes for healthy eating and activity interventions.

Limitations

This study has limitations related to sample size and representation, specific measures tested for CFIR/RE-AIM constructs, reliance on self-report, limited validity testing, no correction for multiple comparisons, and the cross-sectional study design. This study is limited by the various sample sizes of PEs within sites and by the sample size of <30 for the site-level measures. In addition, while the sample comprised providers from different racial, ethnic, and education backgrounds, most participants were female, white, non-Hispanic, and more educated, suggesting the need to validate these measures in underrepresented groups. Further, while the measures were based on previous studies, they were adapted for the current study and were initially mapped to the constructs in the original version of CFIR. They were then reassessed based on the updated CFIR. These mappings were also determined for the current study, as there is limited guidance on specific measures to assess the constructs in implementation science theories, models, and frameworks, particularly in community settings. The study assessed a limited set of properties regarding the measures presented. For example, the constructs were assessed using self-report measures, which reflect respondents’ perceptions. Criterion validity requires evidence of relationships between the measure and another measure assessing a different context (72). However, due to the lack of “gold standard” measures with which to assess these constructs, criterion validity is difficult to assess. Other types of validity assessment are also somewhat limited by the current state of the implementation science field. For example, construct validity (which describes how well a measure assesses the theoretical concept it is supposed to measure) is also challenging to assess, as the measures are assessing framework constructs, but the theory of how the constructs are related remains limited. Further work on theory building, perhaps using the constructs as measured by the scales described in the current paper, may help address this gap, but is beyond the scope of the current manuscript. Given the limited theoretical guidance, the study aims were to generate a hypothesis, rather than to confirm one. Therefore, the current, exploratory analysis examined numerous correlations and did not adjust the p-values for multiple comparisons. Finally, since this was a cross-sectional study, temporality and causal relationships between CFIR contextual determinants and CFIR and RE-AIM outcomes could not be tested. Longitudinal follow-up from this and other studies using these frameworks and measures may provide more insight into the relationships between implementation science determinants and outcomes in community settings.

 Strengths

The study is strengthened by the large sample size of PEs, the number of participating sites, and the geographic diversity of the participants. Furthermore, the study includes measurement at multiple levels (i.e., provider and organization). Importantly, the study provides psychometric properties of theoretically informed measures in under-studied community settings, which are essential for meeting people where they are and building generalizable implementation science. Quantitative data from these measures can complement existing qualitative research (44, 84, 87). As much implementation work has focused primarily on qualitative approaches, these quantitative assessments allow for mixed-methods studies (38, 88), which can develop a rich understanding of the implementation of healthy eating and activity interventions outside clinical settings.

 Conclusions

The present study operationalizes frameworks from implementation science (CFIR and RE-AIM) within a community-based home-visiting program. This study advances implementation science by providing psychometric evidence for measuring implementation in community settings as well as by testing and bridging implementation science determinants and outcomes frameworks. Researchers can use these findings to select measures for future studies and maximize rigor by operationalizing implementation science frameworks through measurement of their constructs (57).

 Data availability statement

The datasets used/analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to Rachel Tabak, rtabak@wustl.edu.

 Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by the Human Research Protection Office, Washington University in St. Louis. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The ethics committee/institutional review board waived the requirement for written informed consent for participation from the participants or the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin because in-person interaction was not required.

 Author contributions

RT: Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Conceptualization, Funding acquisition. CS: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administration. DH-J: Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Methodology. JW: Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis, Data curation, Methodology. AG: Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Conceptualization. KS-M: Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Supervision, Data curation.

 Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the substantive contributions of the Parents as Teachers National Center.

 Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

 Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

 Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

 Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frhs.2026.1637060/full#supplementary-material

 References Churchwell K Elkind MSV Benjamin RM Carson AP Chang EK Lawrence W Call to action: structural racism as a fundamental driver of health disparities: a presidential advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation. (2020) 142(24):e454–68. 10.1161/CIR.000000000000093633170755 Khan SS Brewer LC Canobbio MM Cipolla MJ Grobman WA Lewey J Optimizing prepregnancy cardiovascular health to improve outcomes in pregnant and postpartum individuals and offspring: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. (2023) 147(7):e76–91. 10.1161/CIR.000000000000112436780391 Carnethon MR Pu J Howard G Albert MA Anderson CAM Bertoni AG Cardiovascular health in African Americans: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. (2017) 136(21):e393–423. 10.1161/CIR.000000000000053429061565 Mehta LS Velarde GP Lewey J Sharma G Bond RM Navas-Acien A Cardiovascular disease risk factors in women: the impact of race and ethnicity: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. (2023) 147(19):1471–87. 10.1161/CIR.000000000000113937035919 Wenger NK Lloyd-Jones DM Elkind MSV Fonarow GC Warner JJ Alger HM Call to action for cardiovascular disease in women: epidemiology, awareness, access, and delivery of equitable health care: a presidential advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation. (2022) 145(23):e1059–71. 10.1161/CIR.000000000000107135531777 Mehta LS Sharma G Creanga AA Hameed AB Hollier LM Johnson JC Call to action: maternal health and saving mothers: a policy statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. (2021) 144(15):e251–69. 10.1161/CIR.000000000000100034493059 Hill-Briggs F Adler NE Berkowitz SA Chin MH Gary-Webb TL Navas-Acien A Social determinants of health and diabetes: a scientific review. Diabetes Care. (2020) 44(1):258–79. 10.2337/dci20-005333139407 Kumanyika SK. Advancing health equity efforts to reduce obesity: changing the course. Annu Rev Nutr. (2022) 42:453–80. 10.1146/annurev-nutr-092021-05080535417194 Tabak RG Kandula NR Angell SY Brewer LC Grandner M Hayman LL Implementation of evidence-based behavioral interventions for cardiovascular disease prevention in community settings: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. (2025) 152(9):e75–87. 10.1161/CIR.000000000000134940755303 Mazzucca S Arredondo EM Hoelscher DM Haire-Joshu D Tabak RG Kumanyika SK Expanding implementation research to prevent chronic diseases in community settings. Annu Rev Public Health. (2021) 42:135–58. 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-10254733467924 Thornton PL Kumanyika SK Gregg EW Araneta MR Baskin ML Chin MH New research directions on disparities in obesity and type 2 diabetes. Ann N Y Acad Sci. (2020) 1461(1):5–24. 10.1111/nyas.1427031793006 Kerkhoff AD Farrand E Marquez C Cattamanchi A Handley MA. Addressing health disparities through implementation science-a need to integrate an equity lens from the outset. Implement Sci. (2022) 17(1):13. 10.1186/s13012-022-01189-535101088 Shelton RC Adsul P Oh A. Recommendations for addressing structural racism in implementation science: a call to the field. Ethn Dis. (2021) 31(Suppl 1):357–64. 10.18865/ed.31.S1.35734045837 Brownson RC Kumanyika SK Kreuter MW Haire-Joshu D. Implementation science should give higher priority to health equity. Implement Sci. (2021) 16(1):1–16. 10.1186/s13012-021-01097-033413491 Balis LE Houghtaling B Harden SM. Using implementation strategies in community settings: an introduction to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation and future directions. Transl Behav Med. (2022) 12(10):965–78. 10.1093/tbm/ibac06136039843 Harden SM Smith ML Ory MG Smith-Ray RL Estabrooks PA Glasgow RE. RE-AIM in clinical, community, and corporate settings: perspectives, strategies, and recommendations to enhance public health impact. Front Public Health. (2018) 6:71. 10.3389/fpubh.2018.0007129623270 Nicastro HL Vorkoper S Sterling R Korn AR Brown AGM Maruvada P Opportunities to advance implementation science and nutrition research: a commentary on the strategic plan for NIH nutrition research. Transl Behav Med. (2023) 13(1):1–6. 10.1093/tbm/ibac06636370119 Vorkoper S Korn AR Maruvada P Nicastro HL Shi S. NIH-supported implementation science and nutrition research: a portfolio review of the past decade. Front Public Health. (2023) 11:1235164. 10.3389/fpubh.2023.123516437915813 Swindle T Curran GM Johnson SL. Implementation science and nutrition education and behavior: opportunities for integration. J Nutr Educ Behav. (2019) 51(6):763–74.e1. 10.1016/j.jneb.2019.03.00130982567 Zeldman J Salloum RG Mobley AR. Implementing successful early childhood obesity prevention interventions: the need for family-based effectiveness-implementation hybrid studies. J Acad Nutr Diet. (2023) 123(10):1409–16. 10.1016/j.jand.2023.05.02537247755 Wolfenden L McCrabb S Barnes C O'Brien KM Ng KW Nathan NK Strategies for enhancing the implementation of school-based policies or practices targeting diet, physical activity, obesity, tobacco or alcohol use. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2022) 8(8):CD011677. 10.1002/14651858.CD011677.pub436036664 NIDDK. PATHWAYS TO HEALTH FOR ALL Health Disparities and Health Equity Research Recommendations and Opportunities. (2023). Available online at: https://wwwniddknihgov/about-niddk/strategic-plans-reports/pathways-health-all. Perry CK Damschroder LJ Hemler JR Woodson TT Ono SS Cohen DJ. Specifying and comparing implementation strategies across seven large implementation interventions: a practical application of theory. Implement Sci. (2019) 14(1):32. 10.1186/s13012-019-0876-430898133 McKay H Naylor PJ Lau E Gray SM Wolfenden L Milat A Implementation and scale-up of physical activity and behavioural nutrition interventions: an evaluation roadmap. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. (2019) 16(1):102. 10.1186/s12966-019-0868-431699095 Koorts H Eakin E Estabrooks P Timperio A Salmon J Bauman A. Implementation and scale up of population physical activity interventions for clinical and community settings: the PRACTIS guide. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. (2018) 15(1):51. 10.1186/s12966-018-0678-029884236 Kislov R Pope C Martin GP Wilson PM. Harnessing the power of theorising in implementation science. Implement Sci. (2019) 14(1):103. 10.1186/s13012-019-0957-431823787 Damschroder LJ. Clarity out of chaos: use of theory in implementation research. Psychiatry Res. (2020) 283:112461. 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.06.03631257020 Davis M Beidas RS. Refining contextual inquiry to maximize generalizability and accelerate the implementation process. Implement Res Pract. (2021) 2:2633489521994941. 10.1177/263348952199494137089986 Skolarus TA Lehmann T Tabak RG Harris J Lecy J Sales AE. Assessing citation networks for dissemination and implementation research frameworks. Implement Sci. (2017) 12(1):97. 10.1186/s13012-017-0628-228754140 Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. (2015) 10:53. 10.1186/s13012-015-0242-025895742 Tabak RG Khoong EC Chambers DA Brownson RC. Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research. Am J Prev Med. (2012) 43(3):337–50. 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05.02422898128 Kirk MA Kelley C Yankey N Birken SA Abadie B Damschroder L. A systematic review of the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Implement Sci. (2016) 11:72. 10.1186/s13012-016-0437-z27189233 Damschroder LJ Aron DC Keith RE Kirsh SR Alexander JA Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. (2009) 4:50. 10.1186/1748-5908-4-5019664226 Damschroder LJ Reardon CM Widerquist MAO Lowery J. The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implement Sci. (2022) 17(1):75. 10.1186/s13012-022-01245-036309746 Damschroder LJ Reardon CM Opra Widerquist MA Lowery J. Conceptualizing outcomes for use with the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR): the CFIR outcomes addendum. Implement Sci. (2022) 17(1):7. 10.1186/s13012-021-01181-535065675 Waltz TJ Powell BJ Fernández ME Abadie B Damschroder LJ. Choosing implementation strategies to address contextual barriers: diversity in recommendations and future directions. Implement Sci. (2019) 14(1):42. 10.1186/s13012-019-0892-431036028 Nilsen P Bernhardsson S. Context matters in implementation science: a scoping review of determinant frameworks that describe contextual determinants for implementation outcomes. BMC Health Serv Res. (2019) 19(1):189. 10.1186/s12913-019-4015-330909897 Meshkovska B Scheller DA Wendt J Jilani H Scheidmeir M Stratil JM Barriers and facilitators to implementation of direct fruit and vegetables provision interventions in kindergartens and schools: a qualitative systematic review applying the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR). Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. (2022) 19(1):11. 10.1186/s12966-022-01246-835101084 Goodman AB Porter RM Sucosky MS Belay B Dooyema C Blanck HM. Moving pediatric healthy weight interventions into real-world settings, using implementation science to address access, flexibility, and sustainability. Child Obes. (2021) 17(S1):S5–10. 10.1089/chi.2021.2901334569837 Allen JD Shelton RC Kephart L Jandorf L Folta SC Knott CL. Organizational characteristics conducive to the implementation of health programs among Latino churches. Implement Sci Commun. (2020) 1:62. 10.1186/s43058-020-00052-232885217 King DK Shoup JA Raebel MA Anderson CB Wagner NM Ritzwoller DP Planning for implementation success using RE-AIM and CFIR frameworks: a qualitative study. Front Public Health. (2020) 8:59. 10.3389/fpubh.2020.0005932195217 Holtrop JS Estabrooks PA Gaglio B Harden SM Kessler RS King DK Understanding and applying the RE-AIM framework: clarifications and resources. J Clin Transl Sci. (2021) 5(1):e126. 10.1017/cts.2021.78934367671 Wilson HK Wieler C Bell DL Bhattarai AP Castillo-Hernandez IM Williams ER Implementation of the diabetes prevention program in Georgia cooperative extension according to RE-AIM and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Prev Sci. (2023) 25(Suppl 1):1–12. 10.1007/s11121-024-01665-y Gelman R Whelan J Spiteri S Duric D Oakhill W Cassar S Adoption, implementation, and sustainability of early childhood feeding, nutrition and active play interventions in real-world settings: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. (2023) 20(1):32. 10.1186/s12966-023-01433-136941649 Harden SM Johnson SB Almeida FA Estabrooks PA. Improving physical activity program adoption using integrated research-practice partnerships: an effectiveness-implementation trial. Transl Behav Med. (2017) 7(1):28–38. 10.1007/s13142-015-0380-628299746 Sanchez-Flack JC Herman A Buscemi J Kong A Bains A Fitzgibbon ML. A systematic review of the implementation of obesity prevention interventions in early childcare and education settings using the RE-AIM framework. Transl Behav Med. (2020) 10(5):1168–76. 10.1093/tbm/ibz17933044537 Haire-Joshu D Morshed AB Phad A Johnston S Tabak RG. Applying RE-AIM to evaluate the external validity of weight gain prevention interventions in young adults: a systematic review. J Public Health Manag Pract. (2021) 27(2):154–65. 10.1097/PHH.000000000000115932332487 Bhuiyan N Singh P Harden SM Mama SK. Rural physical activity interventions in the United States: a systematic review and RE-AIM evaluation. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. (2019) 16(1):140. 10.1186/s12966-019-0903-531882013 Cassar S Salmon J Timperio A Naylor PJ van Nassau F Contardo Ayala AM Adoption, implementation and sustainability of school-based physical activity and sedentary behaviour interventions in real-world settings: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. (2019) 16(1):120. 10.1186/s12966-019-0876-431791341 Lane H Porter K Estabrooks P Zoellner J. A systematic review to assess sugar-sweetened beverage interventions for children and adolescents across the socioecological model. J Acad Nutr Diet. (2016) 116(8):1295–307.e6. 10.1016/j.jand.2016.04.01527262383 Glasgow RE Vogt TM Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. (1999) 89(9):1322–7. 10.2105/AJPH.89.9.132210474547 Kessler RS Purcell EP Glasgow RE Klesges LM Benkeser RM Peek CJ. What does it mean to “employ” the RE-AIM model? Eval Health Prof. (2012) 36(1):44–66. 10.1177/016327871244606622615498 Glasgow RE Harden SM Gaglio B Rabin B Smith ML Porter GC RE-AIM Planning and evaluation framework: adapting to new science and practice with a 20-year review. Front Public Health. (2019) 7:64. 10.3389/fpubh.2019.0006430984733 Reilly KL Kennedy S Porter G Estabrooks P. Comparing, contrasting, and integrating dissemination and implementation outcomes included in the RE-AIM and implementation outcomes frameworks. Front Public Health. (2020) 8:430. 10.3389/fpubh.2020.0043032984239 Gaglio B Shoup JA Glasgow RE. The RE-AIM framework: a systematic review of use over time. Am J Public Health. (2013) 103(6):e38–46. 10.2105/AJPH.2013.30129923597377 van der Laag PJ Dorhout BG Heeren AA Veenhof C Barten DJA Schoonhoven L. Barriers and facilitators for implementation of a combined lifestyle intervention in community-dwelling older adults: a scoping review. Front Public Health. (2023) 11:1253267. 10.3389/fpubh.2023.125326737900029 Lewis CC Mettert K Lyon AR. Determining the influence of intervention characteristics on implementation success requires reliable and valid measures: results from a systematic review. Implement Res Pract. (2021) 2:2633489521994197. 10.1177/263348952199419737090003 Fernandez ME Walker TJ Weiner BJ Calo WA Liang S Risendal B Developing measures to assess constructs from the inner setting domain of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Implement Sci. (2018) 13(1):52. 10.1186/s13012-018-0736-729587804 Moullin JC Dickson KS Stadnick NA Albers B Nilsen P Broder-Fingert S Ten recommendations for using implementation frameworks in research and practice. Implement Sci Commun. (2020) 1:42. 10.1186/s43058-020-00023-732885199 Rabin BA Purcell P Naveed S Moser RP Henton MD Proctor EK Advancing the application, quality and harmonization of implementation science measures. Implement Sci. (2012) 7:119. 10.1186/1748-5908-7-11923231885 Spiga F Davies AL Tomlinson E Moore TH Dawson S Breheny K Interventions to prevent obesity in children aged 5 to 11 years old. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2024) 5(5):CD015328. 10.1002/14651858.CD01532838763517 Swindle T Bellows LL Mitchell V Johnson SL Shakya S Zhang D Predictors of sustainment of two distinct nutrition and physical activity programs in early care and education. Front Health Serv. (2022) 2:1010305. 10.3389/frhs.2022.101030536925855 Hall A Shoesmith A Doherty E McEvoy B Mettert K Lewis CC Evaluation of measures of sustainability and sustainability determinants for use in community, public health, and clinical settings: a systematic review. Implement Sci. (2022) 17(1):81. 10.1186/s13012-022-01252-136514059 Leviton LC. Generalizing about public health interventions: a mixed-methods approach to external validity. Annu Rev Public Health. (2017) 38:371–91. 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-04450928125391 Tabak RG Schwarz CD Kemner A Schechtman KB Steger-May K Byrth V Disseminating and implementing a lifestyle-based healthy weight program for mothers in a national organization: a study protocol for a cluster randomized trial. Implement Sci. (2019) 14(1):68. 10.1186/s13012-019-0916-031238955 Haire-Joshu D Schwarz CD Steger-May K Lapka C Schechtman K Brownson RC A randomized trial of weight change in a national home visiting program. Am J Prev Med. (2018) 54(3):341–51. 10.1016/j.amepre.2017.12.01229455756 Harris PA Taylor R Thielke R Payne J Gonzalez N Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. (2009) 42(2):377–81. 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.01018929686 Tabak R Schwarz C Carter E Haire-Joshu D. Context for implementing a gestational weight gain program nationally. Health Behav Policy Rev. (2018) 5(5):77–89. 10.14485/HBPR.5.5.830775399 Glasgow RE. What does it mean to be pragmatic? Pragmatic methods, measures, and models to facilitate research translation. Health Educ Behav. (2013) 40(3):257–65. 10.1177/109019811348680523709579 Glasgow RE Estabrooks PE. Pragmatic applications of RE-AIM for health care initiatives in community and clinical settings. Prev Chronic Dis. (2018) 15:E02. 10.5888/pcd15.17027129300695 Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. (1951) 16:297–334. 10.1007/BF02310555 Lewis CC Mettert KD Stanick CF Halko HM Nolen EA Powell BJ The psychometric and pragmatic evidence rating scale (PAPERS) for measure development and evaluation. Implement Res Pract. (2021) 2:26334895211037391. 10.1177/2633489521103739137089994 Shrout PE Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. (1979) 86(2):420–8. 10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.42018839484 Shrout PE. Measurement reliability and agreement in psychiatry. Stat Methods Med Res. (1998) 7(3):301–17. 10.1177/0962280298007003069803527 Moise N Cené CW Tabak RG Young DR Mills KT Essien UR Leveraging implementation science for cardiovascular health equity: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. (2022) 146(19):e260–78. 10.1161/CIR.000000000000109636214131 Pankratz M Hallfors D Cho H. Measuring perceptions of innovation adoption: the diffusion of a federal drug prevention policy. Health Educ Res. (2002) 17(3):315–26. 10.1093/her/17.3.31512120847 Shea CM Jacobs SR Esserman DA Bruce K Weiner BJ. Organizational readiness for implementing change: a psychometric assessment of a new measure. Implement Sci. (2014) 9:7. 10.1186/1748-5908-9-724410955 Aarons GA. Mental health provider attitudes toward adoption of evidence-based practice: the evidence-based practice attitude scale (EBPAS). Ment Health Serv Res. (2004) 6(2):61–74. 10.1023/B:MHSR.0000024351.12294.6515224451 Aarons GA McDonald EJ Sheehan AK Walrath-Greene CM. Confirmatory factor analysis of the evidence-based practice attitude scale in a geographically diverse sample of community mental health providers. Adm Policy Ment Health. (2007) 34(5):465–9. 10.1007/s10488-007-0127-x17619137 Boppre B Sundt J Salisbury EJ. The limitations and strengths of the evidence-based practice attitude scale as a measure of correctional Employees’ attitudes: a psychometric evaluation. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. (2018) 62(12):3947–64. 10.1177/0306624X1774945029284376 Cook CR Davis C Brown EC Locke J Ehrhart MG Aarons GA Confirmatory factor analysis of the evidence-based practice attitudes scale with school-based behavioral health consultants. Implement Sci. (2018) 13(1):116. 10.1186/s13012-018-0804-z30134943 DeVellis RF. Scale Development: Theory and Applications. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications (2003). Saunders RP Wilcox S Hutto B. Influence of implementation strategies on implementation outcomes in a statewide dissemination of faith, activity, and nutrition (FAN). Health Educ Res. (2022) 37(6):420–33. 10.1093/her/cyac02536149635 Wilcox S Day KR Saunders RP Jake-Schoffman DE Kaczynski AT Stucker J The faith, activity, and nutrition (FAN) dissemination and implementation study: changes in and maintenance of organizational practices over 24 months in a statewide initiative. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. (2022) 19(1):23. 10.1186/s12966-022-01253-935236373 Whiteside-Mansell L Swindle T Selig JP. Together, we inspire smart eating (WISE): an examination of implementation of a WISE curriculum for obesity prevention in children 3 to 7 years. Glob Pediatr Health. (2019) 6:2333794X19869811. 10.1177/2333794X1986981131448304 Chambers DA Glasgow RE Stange KC. The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implement Sci. (2013) 8:117. 10.1186/1748-5908-8-11724088228 Hill JL Heelan KA Bartee RT Wichman C Michaud T Abbey BM A type III hybrid effectiveness-implementation pilot trial testing dissemination and implementation strategies for a pediatric weight management intervention: the Nebraska childhood obesity research demonstration project. Child Obes. (2021) 17(S1):S70–8. 10.1089/chi.2021.017034569848 Houghtaling B Balis L Pradhananga N Cater M Holston D. Healthy eating and active living policy, systems, and environmental changes in rural Louisiana: a contextual inquiry to inform implementation strategies. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. (2023) 20(1):132. 10.1186/s12966-023-01527-w37957692 Steckler A Goodman R McLeroy K Davis S Koch G. Measurement of the diffusion of health promotion programs. Am J Health Promot. (1992) 6(3):214–25. 10.4278/0890-1171-6.3.21410148679 Panzano PC Sweeney HA Seffrin B Massatti R Knudsen KJ. The assimilation of evidence-based healthcare innovations: a management-based perspective. J Behav Health Serv Res. (2012) 39(4):397–416. 10.1007/s11414-012-9294-y23138666 Massatti RR Sweeney HA Panzano PC Roth D. The de-adoption of innovative mental health practices (IMHP): why organizations choose not to sustain an IMHP. Adm Policy Ment Health. (2008) 35(1–2):50–65. 10.1007/s10488-007-0141-z17968652

Edited by: Shefaly Shorey, National University of Singapore, Singapore

Reviewed by: Oleksandr Nazarchuk, National Pirogov Memorial Medical University, Ukraine

Samuel Cumber, University of the Free State, South Africa

Abbreviations PAT, parents as teachers; CFIR, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research; RE-AIM, Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance; HEALTH, healthy eating and active living taught at home; PEs, parent educators; SD, standard deviations; ICCs, intraclass correlation coefficients; SL, site leader; IQR, interquartile range and ranges.