These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
221 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22990496)
1. Networking and knowledge exchange to promote the formation of transdisciplinary coalitions and levels of agreement among transdisciplinary peer reviewers. Lobb R; Petermann L; Manafo E; Keen D; Kerner J J Public Health Manag Pract; 2013; 19(1):E9-20. PubMed ID: 22990496 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Research, practice, and policy partnerships in pan-Canadian coalitions for cancer and chronic disease prevention. Manafò E; Petermann L; Lobb R; Keen D; Kerner J J Public Health Manag Pract; 2011; 17(6):E1-E11. PubMed ID: 21964372 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Bridging basic and clinical science with policy studies: The Partners with Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Centers experience. Kobus K; Mermelstein R Nicotine Tob Res; 2009 May; 11(5):467-74. PubMed ID: 19346504 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Toward a science of transdisciplinary action research. Stokols D Am J Community Psychol; 2006 Sep; 38(1-2):63-77. PubMed ID: 16791514 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada. Tamblyn R; Girard N; Qian CJ; Hanley J CMAJ; 2018 Apr; 190(16):E489-E499. PubMed ID: 29685909 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Unique Review Criteria and Patient and Stakeholder Reviewers: Analysis of PCORI's Approach to Research Funding. Forsythe LP; Frank LB; Tafari AT; Cohen SS; Lauer M; Clauser S; Goertz C; Schrandt S Value Health; 2018 Oct; 21(10):1152-1160. PubMed ID: 30314615 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Panel discussion does not improve reliability of peer review for medical research grant proposals. Fogelholm M; Leppinen S; Auvinen A; Raitanen J; Nuutinen A; Väänänen K J Clin Epidemiol; 2012 Jan; 65(1):47-52. PubMed ID: 21831594 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. In vivo studies of transdisciplinary scientific collaboration Lessons learned and implications for active living research. Stokols D; Harvey R; Gress J; Fuqua J; Phillips K Am J Prev Med; 2005 Feb; 28(2 Suppl 2):202-13. PubMed ID: 15694529 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Peering at peer review revealed high degree of chance associated with funding of grant applications. Mayo NE; Brophy J; Goldberg MS; Klein MB; Miller S; Platt RW; Ritchie J J Clin Epidemiol; 2006 Aug; 59(8):842-8. PubMed ID: 16828678 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Impact of 10 years of glaucoma research funding: the Glaucoma Research Society of Canada. Seif G; Trope G Can J Ophthalmol; 2010 Apr; 45(2):132-4. PubMed ID: 20379296 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The role of transdisciplinary collaboration in translating and disseminating health research: lessons learned and exemplars of success. Emmons KM; Viswanath K; Colditz GA Am J Prev Med; 2008 Aug; 35(2 Suppl):S204-10. PubMed ID: 18619401 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Pathways to policy: Lessons learned in multisectoral collaboration for physical activity and built environment policy development from the Coalitions Linking Action and Science for Prevention (CLASP) initiative. Politis CE; Mowat DL; Keen D Can J Public Health; 2017 Jun; 108(2):e192-e198. PubMed ID: 28621656 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. State Fall Prevention Coalitions as Systems Change Agents: An Emphasis on Policy. Schneider EC; Smith ML; Ory MG; Altpeter M; Beattie BL; Scheirer MA; Shubert TE Health Promot Pract; 2016 Mar; 17(2):244-53. PubMed ID: 26500227 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Involving Patient Partners in the KRESCENT Peer Review: Intent, Process, Challenges, and Opportunities. Fowler EA; Bell K; Burns K; Chiazzese A; DeSerres SA; Foster BJ; Hartwig S; Herrington G; James MT; Jensen V; Jones N; Kidston S; Lemay S; Levin A; MacPhee A; McCutcheon S; Ravani P; Samuel S; Scholey J; Takano T; Tangri N; Verdin N; Alexander RT; Clase CM Can J Kidney Health Dis; 2022; 9():20543581221136402. PubMed ID: 36406869 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Creating a new articulation between research and practice through policy? The views and experiences of researchers and practitioners. Denis JL; Lehoux P; Hivon M; Champagne F J Health Serv Res Policy; 2003 Oct; 8 Suppl 2():44-50. PubMed ID: 14596747 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Using simplified peer review processes to fund research: a prospective study. Herbert DL; Graves N; Clarke P; Barnett AG BMJ Open; 2015 Jul; 5(7):e008380. PubMed ID: 26137884 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Developing strategies to enhance health services research capacity in a predominantly rural Canadian health authority. Miller J; Bryant Maclean L; Coward P; Broemeling AM Rural Remote Health; 2009; 9(4):1266. PubMed ID: 20028187 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications. Pier EL; Brauer M; Filut A; Kaatz A; Raclaw J; Nathan MJ; Ford CE; Carnes M Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2018 Mar; 115(12):2952-2957. PubMed ID: 29507248 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Reducing obesity and related chronic disease risk in children and youth: a synthesis of evidence with 'best practice' recommendations. Flynn MA; McNeil DA; Maloff B; Mutasingwa D; Wu M; Ford C; Tough SC Obes Rev; 2006 Feb; 7 Suppl 1():7-66. PubMed ID: 16371076 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]