Network analysis of RE-AIM framework: chronology of the field and the connectivity of its contributors
Tóm tắt
The reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework has been widely used for translational research. We used social network analysis (SNA) to explore how innovative research frameworks, such as RE-AIM, have diffused over time in academic literature. A structured literature review was conducted on RE-AIM between 1999 and 2012. SNA indices of degree score, betweenness, centrality, and authorship ties were used to examine use of RE-AIM. Use of RE-AIM has grown since its inception and spread from a few research centers to use internationally. Investigation of co-authorship revealed many have published on RE-AIM, but a much smaller core of RE-AIM researchers have published together two or more times. SNA revealed how the RE-AIM framework has been used over time and identified areas to further expand use of the framework. SNA can be useful to understand how research frameworks diffuse over time.
Tài liệu tham khảo
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Zerhouni EA. Translational and clinical science—time for a new vision. N Engl J Med. 2005; 353(15): 1621-1623.
Woolf SH. The meaning of translational research and why it matters. JAMA. 2008; 299(2): 211-213.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Crane D. Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1972.
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.
Katz JS, Hicks D. How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics. 1997; 40(3): 541-554.
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.
Coile RC. Lotka’s frequency distribution of scientific productivity. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 1977; 28(6): 366-370.
Lotka A. The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. J Washington Acad Sci. 1926; 16(12): 317-323.
Lee S, Bozeman B. The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Soc Stud Sci. 2005; 35(5): 673-702.
Newman ME. The structure of scientific collaboration networks. PNAS. 2001; 98(2): 404-409.
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.
Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Di Costa F. Research collaboration and productivity: is there correlation? Higher Ed. 2009; 57(2): 155-171.
Thijs B, Glänzel W. A structural analysis of collaboration between European research institutes. Res Eval. 2010; 19(1): 55-65.
Lee K, Brownstein JS, Mills RG, Kohane IS. Does collocation inform the impact of collaboration? PLoS One. 2010; 5(12): e14279.
IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corporation; Released 2012.
Luke DA, Harris JK. Network analysis in public health: history, methods, and applications. Annu Rev Public Health. 2007; 28: 69-93.
LeCompte MD, Schensul JJ, Singer M, Trotter II, Robert T, Cromley EK. Mapping Social Networks, Spatial Data, & Hidden Populations. Lanham: Rowman Altamira; 1999.
Valente TW. Social Networks and Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
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.
Christakis NA, Fowler JH. The collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358(21): 2249-2258.
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.
Kamensky JM, Burlin TJ. Collaboration: Using Networks and Partnerships. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield; 2004.
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.
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.
Norquist G, Miller L. Academic and public system collaborations: opportunities in a changing environment. Acad Psychiat. 2011; 35(2): 81-85.
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.
Weintraub A. Social networks attempt to spark academic-university collaborations. Nature Biotech. 2012; 30(10): 901-903.
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.
Scott J, Carrington PJ. The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2011.
Wasserman S, Galaskiewicz J. Advances in Social Network Analysis: Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 1994.
Uddin S, Hossain L, Rasmussen K. Network effects on scientific collaborations. PLoS One. 2013; 8(2): e57546.
Kossinets G, Watts DJ. Empirical analysis of an evolving social network. Science. 2006; 311(5757): 88-90.
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.
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.
Borgatti SP, Mehra A, Brass DJ, Labianca G. Network analysis in the social sciences. Science. 2009; 323(5916): 892-895.
Sosa ME. Where do creative interactions come from? The role of tie content and social networks. Org Sci. 2011; 22(1): 1-21.
Fishman M, Cross R, Tadmor B. Better connected. Nature. 2013; 493(7434): 709-710.
Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC. UCINET for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies; 2002.
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.
Ding Y. Scientific collaboration and endorsement: network analysis of coauthorship and citation networks. J Inform. 2011; 5(1): 187-203.
Doreian P, Stokman F. Evolution of Social Networks. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge; 2013.
Liao CH, Yen HR. Quantifying the degree of research collaboration: a comparative study of collaborative measures. J Informetrics. 2012; 6(1): 27-33.
Noruzi A. Google scholar: the new generation of citation indexes. Libri. 2005; 55(4): 170-180.
Garfield E. Citation indexes for science. a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Intl J Epi. 2006; 35(5): 1123-1127.
Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA. 2006; 295(1): 90-93.
Carrington PJ, Scott J, Wasserman S. Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
Granovetter MS. The strength of weak ties. Am J Soc. 1973: 1360-1380.