ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025
Improving the usability of online resources to support implementation research and practice: The RE-AIM website use case.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Leveraging Dental Biotechnology for Population Oral Health: Innovations in Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Our overall goal was to enhance the usability and interactivity of the RE-AIM website (re-aim.org) and improve resources to support the application of the RE-AIM framework within the context of dissemination & implementation (D&I) research and practice. Methods: We applied a mixed-methods approach to obtain user feedback from 24 D&I researchers and practitioners. Usability (System Usability Scale) and interactivity (Interactivity Scale) were assessed through validated surveys, at baseline and after two iterative rounds of website modifications (Phase 1 and Phase 2). We also conducted qualitative assessments at each phase. Results: Qualitative baseline and Phase 1 findings indicated a need to simplify organization, enhance information accessibility, provide concrete guidance on applying RE-AIM, and clarify contextual factors related to RE-AIM constructs. After streamlining website and homepage organization, Phase 2 qualitative results suggested improved user navigation experience; users also requested greater interactivity. Modifications included: new interactive planning tool and a video introduction of contextual factors influencing RE-AIM outcomes. Significant improvements were found in the SUS score from baseline to Phase 1(64.2[SD18.7] to 80.8 [SD 12.1] ( Conclusion: User-centered feedback on online resources, as exemplified by this use case example of enhancements to the RE-AIM website, are important in bridging the gap between research and practice, and the revised website should be more accessible and useful to users.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.