Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Translational Behavioral Medicine
Published in: Translational Behavioral Medicine 2/2015

01-06-2015 | Systematic Reviews

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

Authors: Jo Ann Shoup, MSW, MS, MA, Bridget Gaglio, PhD, Danielle Varda, PhD, Russell E. Glasgow, PhD

Published in: Translational Behavioral Medicine | Issue 2/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
8.
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRef
18.
Katz JS, Hicks D. How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics. 1997; 40(3): 541-554.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
20.
Coile RC. Lotka’s frequency distribution of scientific productivity. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 1977; 28(6): 366-370.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
23.
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.CrossRef
25.
Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Di Costa F. Research collaboration and productivity: is there correlation? Higher Ed. 2009; 57(2): 155-171.CrossRef
26.
Thijs B, Glänzel W. A structural analysis of collaboration between European research institutes. Res Eval. 2010; 19(1): 55-65.CrossRef
27.
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRefPubMed
33.
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.CrossRef
38.
Norquist G, Miller L. Academic and public system collaborations: opportunities in a changing environment. Acad Psychiat. 2011; 35(2): 81-85.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
40.
Weintraub A. Social networks attempt to spark academic-university collaborations. Nature Biotech. 2012; 30(10): 901-903.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
44.
45.
Kossinets G, Watts DJ. Empirical analysis of an evolving social network. Science. 2006; 311(5757): 88-90.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Sosa ME. Where do creative interactions come from? The role of tie content and social networks. Org Sci. 2011; 22(1): 1-21.CrossRef
50.
Fishman M, Cross R, Tadmor B. Better connected. Nature. 2013; 493(7434): 709-710.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
53.
Ding Y. Scientific collaboration and endorsement: network analysis of coauthorship and citation networks. J Inform. 2011; 5(1): 187-203.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
56.
Noruzi A. Google scholar: the new generation of citation indexes. Libri. 2005; 55(4): 170-180.CrossRef
57.
Garfield E. Citation indexes for science. a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Intl J Epi. 2006; 35(5): 1123-1127.CrossRef
58.
59.
Carrington PJ, Scott J, Wasserman S. Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 2005.CrossRef
60.
Granovetter MS. The strength of weak ties. Am J Soc. 1973: 1360-1380.
Metadata
Title
Network analysis of RE-AIM framework: chronology of the field and the connectivity of its contributors
Authors
Jo Ann Shoup, MSW, MS, MA
Bridget Gaglio, PhD
Danielle Varda, PhD
Russell E. Glasgow, PhD
Publication date
01-06-2015
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Translational Behavioral Medicine / Issue 2/2015
Print ISSN: 1869-6716
Electronic ISSN: 1613-9860
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-014-0300-1

Other articles of this Issue 2/2015

Translational Behavioral Medicine 2/2015 Go to the issue

Original Research

Theory-based approach for maintaining resistance training in older adults with prediabetes: adherence, barriers, self-regulation strategies, treatment fidelity, costs

Original Research

Disseminating results: community response and input on Kisumu breastfeeding study

Original Research

Tweet for health: using an online social network to examine temporal trends in weight loss-related posts

Original Research

Decisional outcomes following use of an interactive web-based decision aid for prostate cancer screening

News from CDC

News from CDC: applying a life course approach to primary cancer prevention

Original Research

Implementing an evidence-based breast cancer support and communication tool to newly diagnosed patients as standard care in two institutions