Applying the RE-AIM implementation framework to evaluate diabetes health coaching in individuals with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and secondary analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Diabetes health coaching continues to emerge as an effective intervention to support diabetes self-management. While previous systematic reviews have focused on the effectiveness of diabetes health coaching programs in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2DM), limited literature is available on its implementation. This review examines what aspects of diabetes health coaching interventions for adults living with type 2 diabetes have been reported using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to optimize implementation. Methods: We examined the included studies from our recently completed systematic review, which searched 6 databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of health coaching interventions delivered by a health professional for adults with T2DM. Reviewers screened citations and extracted data for study characteristics and the 5 dimensions (62 criteria) of the RE-AIM framework. Results: 9 diabetes health coaching RCTs were included in this review. 12 criteria were reported by all the included studies and 21 criteria were not reported by any of the studies. The included studies all reported on more than 20 RE-AIM criteria, ranging from 21 to 27. While Reach was the best reported construct by the included studies, followed by Effectiveness and Implementation, the criteria within the Adoption and Maintenance constructs were rarely mentioned by these studies. In general, there was also wide variation in how each of the criteria were reported on by study authors. Conclusions: Due to the paucity of reporting of the RE-AIM components for diabetes health coaching, limited implementation and clinical practice implications can be drawn. The lack of detail regarding implementation approaches to diabetes health coaching greatly limits the interpretation and comparisons across studies to best inform the application of this intervention to support diabetes self-management. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO identifier, CRD42022347478.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.094 | 0.193 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".