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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

59 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25312557)

  • 21. The effects of stakeholder involvement on perceptions of an evaluation's credibility.
    Jacobson MR; Azzam T
    Eval Program Plann; 2018 Jun; 68():64-73. PubMed ID: 29486426
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Successful development and testing of a Method for Aggregating The Reporting of Interventions in Complex Studies (MATRICS).
    Hutchings HA; Thorne K; Jerzembek GS; Cheung WY; Cohen D; Durai D; Rapport FL; Seagrove AC; Williams JG; Russell IT
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Jan; 69():193-8. PubMed ID: 26327489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Use of research evidence in U.S. federal policymaking: A reflexive report on intra-stage mixed methods.
    Diaz BA; Pugel J; Phutane A; Zhang L; Green L; Hoffmann J; Long EC; Crowley M; Taylor Scott J
    Eval Program Plann; 2024 Oct; 106():102469. PubMed ID: 39047657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Innovations in Mixed Methods Evaluations.
    Palinkas LA; Mendon SJ; Hamilton AB
    Annu Rev Public Health; 2019 Apr; 40():423-442. PubMed ID: 30633710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Researching evaluation influence: a review of the literature.
    Herbert JL
    Eval Rev; 2014 Oct; 38(5):388-419. PubMed ID: 25192695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Evaluating the impact of integrated development: are we asking the right questions? A systematic review.
    Ahner-McHaffie TW; Guest G; Petruney T; Eterno A; Dooley B
    Gates Open Res; 2017; 1():6. PubMed ID: 29984355
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. When assessing generalisability, focusing on differences in population or setting alone is insufficient.
    Burchett HED; Kneale D; Blanchard L; Thomas J
    Trials; 2020 Mar; 21(1):286. PubMed ID: 32197623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Developing Your Evaluation Plans: A Critical Component of Public Health Program Infrastructure.
    Lavinghouze SR; Snyder K
    Am J Health Educ; 2013; 44(4):237-243. PubMed ID: 26442134
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. How Mixed-Methods Research Can Improve the Policy Relevance of Impact Evaluations.
    Barnow BS; Pandey SK; Luo QE
    Eval Rev; 2024 Jun; 48(3):495-514. PubMed ID: 38299483
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Program Evaluation's Path to Greater Policy Relevance: Learning From Rossi's Iron Laws.
    Besharov DJ
    Eval Rev; 2024 Jun; 48(3):403-409. PubMed ID: 38590012
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Program Evaluation's "Next of Kin".
    Balmer DF; Klein MD; Li ST; Gusic ME
    Acad Med; 2022 Oct; 97(10):1573-1574. PubMed ID: 36198164
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. A Digital Gaming Intervention to Strengthen the Social Networks of Older Dutch Adults: Mixed Methods Process Evaluation of a Digitally Conducted Randomized Controlled Trial.
    Janssen J; Châtel B; Den Heijer N; Tieben R; Deen M; Corten R; Peeters G; Olde Rikkert M
    JMIR Form Res; 2023 Oct; 7():e45173. PubMed ID: 37862093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. What do we want to get out of this? a critical interpretive synthesis of the value of process evaluations, with a practical planning framework.
    French C; Dowrick A; Fudge N; Pinnock H; Taylor SJC
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Nov; 22(1):302. PubMed ID: 36434520
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Process evaluation within pragmatic randomised controlled trials: what is it, why is it done, and can we find it?-a systematic review.
    French C; Pinnock H; Forbes G; Skene I; Taylor SJC
    Trials; 2020 Nov; 21(1):916. PubMed ID: 33168067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Study protocol of a co-created primary organizational-level intervention with the aim to improve organizational and social working conditions and decrease stress within the construction industry - a controlled trial.
    Cedstrand E; Nyberg A; Bodin T; Augustsson H; Johansson G
    BMC Public Health; 2020 Mar; 20(1):424. PubMed ID: 32228509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Process evaluation of a tailored work-related support intervention for patients diagnosed with gastrointestinal cancer.
    Zaman AGNM; Tytgat KMAJ; Klinkenbijl JHG; de Boer AGEM; Frings-Dresen MHW
    J Cancer Surviv; 2020 Feb; 14(1):59-71. PubMed ID: 31745819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Transition program for adolescents with congenital heart disease in transition to adulthood: protocol for a mixed-method process evaluation study (the STEPSTONES project).
    Saarijärvi M; Wallin L; Moons P; Gyllensten H; Bratt EL
    BMJ Open; 2019 Aug; 9(8):e028229. PubMed ID: 31377699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Offering a tailored return to work program to cancer survivors with job loss: a process evaluation.
    van Egmond MP; Duijts SF; Scholten AP; van der Beek AJ; Anema JR
    BMC Public Health; 2016 Sep; 15(1):940. PubMed ID: 27600542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Uniform presentation of process evaluation results facilitates the evaluation of complex interventions: development of a graph.
    Bakker FC; Persoon A; Schoon Y; Olde Rikkert MG
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2015 Feb; 21(1):97-102. PubMed ID: 25312557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 3.