Network analysis of RE-AIM framework: chronology of the field and the connectivity of its contributors

Translational Behavioral Medicine

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 216-232

  Shoup, Jo Ann ^a,b   Gaglio, Bridget ^c   Varda, Danielle ^b   Glasgow, Russell E ^b,d  

^a KAISER PERMANENTE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^c PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Co authorship analyses; Evaluation; RE AIM; Social network analyses

Indexed keywords

AUTHOR; BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; REVIEW; SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH; WRITING;

EID: 84930198504     PISSN: 18696716     EISSN: 16139860     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s13142-014-0300-1     Document Type: Review

References (60)

1. 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-e46.
2. Dunton GF, Lagloire R, Robertson T. Using the RE-AIM framework to evaluate the statewide dissemination of a school-based physical activity and nutrition curriculum: “Exercise Your Options”. Am J Health Promot. 2009; 23(4): 229-232.
3. Farris RP, Will JC, Khavjou O, Finkelstein EA. Beyond effectiveness: evaluating the public health impact of the WISEWOMAN program. Am J Public Health. 2007; 97(4): 641-647.
4. Glasgow RE, Linnan LA. Evaluation of theory-based interventions. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K, eds. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. 4th ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2008: 487-508.
5. 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): 1322-1327.
6. Gaglio B, Glasgow RE, Brownson RC, Colditz G, Procter E. Evaluation approaches for dissemination and implementation research. In: Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor EK, eds. Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012: 327-358.
7. Zerhouni EA. Translational and clinical science—time for a new vision. N Engl J Med. 2005; 353(15): 1621-1623.
8. Woolf SH. The meaning of translational research and why it matters. JAMA. 2008; 299(2): 211-213.
9. Glasgow RE, Klesges LM, Dzewaltowski DA, Estabrooks PA, Vogt TM. Evaluating the impact of health promotion programs: using the RE-AIM framework to form summary measures for decision making involving complex issues. Health Educ Res. 2006; 21(5): 688-694.
10. Jilcott S, Ammerman A, Sommers J, Glasgow R. Applying the RE-AIM framework to assess the public health impact of policy change. Ann Behav Med. 2007; 34(2): 105-114.
11. Glasgow RE, Lichtenstein E, Marcus AC. Why don’t we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. Am J Public Health. 2003; 93(8): 1261-1267.
12. 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. 2013; 36(1): 44.
13. King DK, Glasgow RE, Leeman-Castillo B. Reaiming RE-AIM: using the model to plan, implement, and evaluate the effects of environmental change approaches to enhancing population health. Am J Public Health. 2010; 100(11): 2076-2084.
14. Green LW, Ottoson J, Garcia C, Robert H. Diffusion theory and knowledge dissemination, utilization, and integration in public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2009; 30: 151.
15. Kessler R, Glasgow RE. A proposal to speed translation of healthcare research into practice: dramatic change is needed. Am J Prev Med. 2011; 40(6): 637-644.
16. Crane D. Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1972.
17. Tuire P, Erno L. Exploring invisible scientific communities: studying networking relations within an educational research community. A Finnish case. Higher Ed. 2001; 42(4): 493-513.
18. Katz JS, Hicks D. How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics. 1997; 40(3): 541-554.
19. Morris SA, Goldstein ML. Manifestation of research teams in journal literature: a growth model of papers, authors, collaboration, coauthorship, weak ties, and Lotka’s law. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 2007; 58(12): 1764-1782.
20. Coile RC. Lotka’s frequency distribution of scientific productivity. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 1977; 28(6): 366-370.
21. Lotka A. The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. J Washington Acad Sci. 1926; 16(12): 317-323.
22. Lee S, Bozeman B. The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Soc Stud Sci. 2005; 35(5): 673-702.
23. Newman ME. The structure of scientific collaboration networks. PNAS. 2001; 98(2): 404-409.
24. Ding WW, Levin SG, Stephan PE, Winkler AE. The impact of information technology on academic scientists’ productivity and collaboration patterns. Manag Sci. 2010; 56(9): 1439-1461.
25. Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Di Costa F. Research collaboration and productivity: is there correlation? Higher Ed. 2009; 57(2): 155-171.
26. Thijs B, Glänzel W. A structural analysis of collaboration between European research institutes. Res Eval. 2010; 19(1): 55-65.
27. Lee K, Brownstein JS, Mills RG, Kohane IS. Does collocation inform the impact of collaboration? PLoS One. 2010; 5(12): e14279.
28. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corporation; Released 2012.
29. Luke DA, Harris JK. Network analysis in public health: history, methods, and applications. Annu Rev Public Health. 2007; 28: 69-93.
30. LeCompte MD, Schensul JJ, Singer M, Trotter II, Robert T, Cromley EK. Mapping Social Networks, Spatial Data, & Hidden Populations. Lanham: Rowman Altamira; 1999.
31. Valente TW. Social Networks and Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
32. Christakis NA, Fowler JH. The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357(4): 370-379.
33. Christakis NA, Fowler JH. The collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358(21): 2249-2258.
34. Fowler JH, Christakis NA. Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study. BMJ. 2008; 337.
35. Kamensky JM, Burlin TJ. Collaboration: Using Networks and Partnerships. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield; 2004.
36. Powell WW, Koput KW, Smith-Doerr L. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Admin Sci Quart. 1996; 116–145.
37. Varda D, Shoup JA, Miller S. A systematic review of collaboration and network research in the public affairs literature: implications for public health practice and research. Am J Pub Health. 2012; 102(3): 564-571.
38. Norquist G, Miller L. Academic and public system collaborations: opportunities in a changing environment. Acad Psychiat. 2011; 35(2): 81-85.
39. Bozeman B, Gaughan M. How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaborative motives and strategies of academic researchers. Res Policy. 2011; 40(10): 1393-1402.
40. Weintraub A. Social networks attempt to spark academic-university collaborations. Nature Biotech. 2012; 30(10): 901-903.
41. Bryson JM, Crosby BC, Stone MM. The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: propositions from the literature. Pub Admin Rev. 2006; 66(s1): 44-55.
42. Scott J, Carrington PJ. The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2011.
43. Wasserman S, Galaskiewicz J. Advances in Social Network Analysis: Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 1994.
44. Uddin S, Hossain L, Rasmussen K. Network effects on scientific collaborations. PLoS One. 2013; 8(2): e57546.
45. Kossinets G, Watts DJ. Empirical analysis of an evolving social network. Science. 2006; 311(5757): 88-90.
46. Zhao S. Do internet users have more social ties? A call for differentiated analyses of Internet use. J Comp-Mediated Commun. 2006; 11(3): 844-862.
47. Backstrom L, Huttenlocher D, Kleinberg J, Lan X. Group formation in large social networks: membership, growth, and evolution. Paper presented at Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining; 2006.
48. Borgatti SP, Mehra A, Brass DJ, Labianca G. Network analysis in the social sciences. Science. 2009; 323(5916): 892-895.
49. Sosa ME. Where do creative interactions come from? The role of tie content and social networks. Org Sci. 2011; 22(1): 1-21.
50. Fishman M, Cross R, Tadmor B. Better connected. Nature. 2013; 493(7434): 709-710.
51. Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC. UCINET for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies; 2002.
52. De Stefano D, Fuccella V, Vitale MP, Zaccarin S. The use of different data sources in the analysis of co-authorship networks and scientific performance. Soc Networks. 2013; 35(3): 370-381.
53. Ding Y. Scientific collaboration and endorsement: network analysis of coauthorship and citation networks. J Inform. 2011; 5(1): 187-203.
54. Doreian P, Stokman F. Evolution of Social Networks. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge; 2013.
55. Liao CH, Yen HR. Quantifying the degree of research collaboration: a comparative study of collaborative measures. J Informetrics. 2012; 6(1): 27-33.
56. Noruzi A. Google scholar: the new generation of citation indexes. Libri. 2005; 55(4): 170-180.
57. Garfield E. Citation indexes for science. a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Intl J Epi. 2006; 35(5): 1123-1127.
58. Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA. 2006; 295(1): 90-93.
59. Carrington PJ, Scott J, Wasserman S. Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
60. Granovetter MS. The strength of weak ties. Am J Soc. 1973: 1360-1380.