 Connection
Russell Glasgow to Research Design
This is a "connection" page, showing publications Russell Glasgow has written about Research Design.
|
|
| |
Connection Strength |
|
 |
|
 |
| |
5.178 |
|
|
|
-
Estabrooks PA, Glasgow RE. Developing a dissemination and implementation research agenda for aging and public health: The what, when, how, and why? Front Public Health. 2023; 11:1123349.
Score: 0.564
-
Huebschmann AG, Leavitt IM, Glasgow RE. Making Health Research Matter: A Call to Increase Attention to External Validity. Annu Rev Public Health. 2019 04 01; 40:45-63.
Score: 0.426
-
Battaglia C, Glasgow RE. Pragmatic dissemination and implementation research models, methods and measures and their relevance for nursing research. Nurs Outlook. 2018 09; 66(5):430-445.
Score: 0.413
-
Glasgow RE, Huebschmann AG, Brownson RC. Expanding the CONSORT Figure: Increasing Transparency in Reporting on External Validity. Am J Prev Med. 2018 09; 55(3):422-430.
Score: 0.411
-
Breen N, Scott S, Percy-Laurry A, Lewis D, Glasgow R. Health disparities calculator: a methodologically rigorous tool for analyzing inequalities in population health. Am J Public Health. 2014 Sep; 104(9):1589-91.
Score: 0.312
-
Glasgow RE, Kessler RS, Ory MG, Roby D, Gorin SS, Krist A. Conducting rapid, relevant research: lessons learned from the My Own Health Report project. Am J Prev Med. 2014 Aug; 47(2):212-9.
Score: 0.310
-
Glasgow RE, Phillips SM, Sanchez MA. Implementation science approaches for integrating eHealth research into practice and policy. Int J Med Inform. 2014 Jul; 83(7):e1-11.
Score: 0.291
-
Glasgow RE, Gaglio B, Bennett G, Jerome GJ, Yeh HC, Sarwer DB, Appel L, Colditz G, Wadden TA, Wells B. Applying the PRECIS criteria to describe three effectiveness trials of weight loss in obese patients with comorbid conditions. Health Serv Res. 2012 Jun; 47(3 Pt 1):1051-67.
Score: 0.258
-
Glasgow RE. eHealth evaluation and dissemination research. Am J Prev Med. 2007 May; 32(5 Suppl):S119-26.
Score: 0.189
-
Glasgow RE, Green LW, Klesges LM, Abrams DB, Fisher EB, Goldstein MG, Hayman LL, Ockene JK, Orleans CT. External validity: we need to do more. Ann Behav Med. 2006 Apr; 31(2):105-8.
Score: 0.175
-
Green LW, Glasgow RE. Evaluating the relevance, generalization, and applicability of research: issues in external validation and translation methodology. Eval Health Prof. 2006 Mar; 29(1):126-53.
Score: 0.174
-
Glasgow RE, Magid DJ, Beck A, Ritzwoller D, Estabrooks PA. Practical clinical trials for translating research to practice: design and measurement recommendations. Med Care. 2005 Jun; 43(6):551-7.
Score: 0.166
-
Studts CR, Ford B, Glasgow RE. RE-AIM implementation outcomes and service outcomes: what's the connection? results of a cross-sectional survey. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023 Dec 15; 23(1):1417.
Score: 0.150
-
Rabin BA, Cakici J, Golden CA, Estabrooks PA, Glasgow RE, Gaglio B. A citation analysis and scoping systematic review of the operationalization of the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM). Implement Sci. 2022 09 24; 17(1):62.
Score: 0.137
-
Estabrooks PA, Gaglio B, Glasgow RE, Harden SM, Ory MG, Rabin BA, Smith ML. Editorial: Use of the RE-AIM Framework: Translating Research to Practice With Novel Applications and Emerging Directions. Front Public Health. 2021; 9:691526.
Score: 0.126
-
Johnson KE, Neta G, Dember LM, Coronado GD, Suls J, Chambers DA, Rundell S, Smith DH, Liu B, Taplin S, Stoney CM, Farrell MM, Glasgow RE. Use of PRECIS ratings in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory. Trials. 2016 Jan 16; 17:32.
Score: 0.086
-
Harden SM, Gaglio B, Shoup JA, Kinney KA, Johnson SB, Brito F, Blackman KC, Zoellner JM, Hill JL, Almeida FA, Glasgow RE, Estabrooks PA. Fidelity to and comparative results across behavioral interventions evaluated through the RE-AIM framework: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2015 Nov 08; 4:155.
Score: 0.085
-
Rabin B, Glasgow RE. An implementation science perspective on psychological science and cancer: what is known and opportunities for research, policy, and practice. Am Psychol. 2015 Feb-Mar; 70(2):211-20.
Score: 0.081
-
Johnson KE, Tachibana C, Coronado GD, Dember LM, Glasgow RE, Huang SS, Martin PJ, Richards J, Rosenthal G, Septimus E, Simon GE, Solberg L, Suls J, Thompson E, Larson EB. A guide to research partnerships for pragmatic clinical trials. BMJ. 2014 Dec 01; 349:g6826.
Score: 0.080
-
Peek CJ, Glasgow RE, Stange KC, Klesges LM, Purcell EP, Kessler RS. The 5 R's: an emerging bold standard for conducting relevant research in a changing world. Ann Fam Med. 2014 Sep-Oct; 12(5):447-55.
Score: 0.079
-
Glasgow RE, Doria-Rose VP, Khoury MJ, Elzarrad M, Brown ML, Stange KC. Comparative effectiveness research in cancer: what has been funded and what knowledge gaps remain? J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013 Jun 05; 105(11):766-73.
Score: 0.071
-
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 Mar; 36(1):44-66.
Score: 0.067
-
Glasgow RE, Chambers D. Developing robust, sustainable, implementation systems using rigorous, rapid and relevant science. Clin Transl Sci. 2012 Feb; 5(1):48-55.
Score: 0.066
-
Kessler R, Glasgow RE. A proposal to speed translation of healthcare research into practice: dramatic change is needed. Am J Prev Med. 2011 Jun; 40(6):637-44.
Score: 0.063
-
Biglan A, Glasgow RE. The social unit: an important facet in the design of cancer control research. Prev Med. 1991 Mar; 20(2):292-305.
Score: 0.062
-
Glasgow RE. What types of evidence are most needed to advance behavioral medicine? Ann Behav Med. 2008 Feb; 35(1):19-25.
Score: 0.050
-
Glasgow RE, Emmons KM. How can we increase translation of research into practice? Types of evidence needed. Annu Rev Public Health. 2007; 28:413-33.
Score: 0.046
-
Glasgow RE. RE-AIMing research for application: ways to improve evidence for family medicine. J Am Board Fam Med. 2006 Jan-Feb; 19(1):11-9.
Score: 0.043
-
Dzewaltowski DA, Estabrooks PA, Klesges LM, Glasgow RE. TREND: an important step, but not enough. Am J Public Health. 2004 Sep; 94(9):1474; author reply 1474-5.
Score: 0.039
-
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 Aug; 93(8):1261-7.
Score: 0.036
-
Glasgow RE. Outcomes of and for diabetes education research. Diabetes Educ. 1999 Nov-Dec; 25(6 Suppl):74-88.
Score: 0.028
-
Glasgow RE, Eakin EG, Toobert DJ. How generalizable are the results of diabetes self-management research? The impact of participation and attrition. Diabetes Educ. 1996 Nov-Dec; 22(6):573-4, 581-2, 584-5.
Score: 0.023
-
McCaul KD, Branstetter AD, Schroeder DM, Glasgow RE. What is the relationship between breast cancer risk and mammography screening? A meta-analytic review. Health Psychol. 1996 Nov; 15(6):423-9.
Score: 0.023
-
Glasgow RE, Anderson BJ. Future directions for research on pediatric chronic disease management: lessons from diabetes. J Pediatr Psychol. 1995 Aug; 20(4):389-402.
Score: 0.021
-
Khoury MJ, Coates RJ, Fennell ML, Glasgow RE, Scheuner MT, Schully SD, Williams MS, Clauser SB. Multilevel research and the challenges of implementing genomic medicine. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2012 May; 2012(44):112-20.
Score: 0.017
-
Garfield SA, Malozowski S, Chin MH, Narayan KM, Glasgow RE, Green LW, Hiss RG, Krumholz HM. Considerations for diabetes translational research in real-world settings. Diabetes Care. 2003 Sep; 26(9):2670-4.
Score: 0.009
|
Connection Strength
The connection strength for concepts is the sum of the scores for each matching publication.
Publication scores are based on many factors, including how long ago they were written and whether the person is a first or senior author.
|