ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2026
Contextualizing Evaluation in Research Consortia: A Reflective Case Study from the Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMIs) Program.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In 2020, evaluators within the Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMIs) program proposed a conceptual framework identifying four primary evaluation targets: scientific productivity, scientific collaboration, professional growth, and research resources. This study extends prior work by capturing the contextual and process-oriented dimensions of program impact. This reflective practice-based project examines how non-quantitative approaches complement traditional metrics to better characterize RCMI outcomes. Evaluators representing ten RCMI sites participated in a multi-site case study guided by three questions addressing: (1) qualitative evidence of impact beyond metrics; (2) challenges and successes in implementation of non-quantitative methods; and (3) potential expansion of evaluation targets. Evaluators provided descriptive responses, generating a 22-page dataset that was analyzed thematically. Thirteen non-quantitative evaluation domains emerged: investigator consultations, investigator productivity, investigator success, community partnerships, intra-RCMI collaborations, implementation of team science, career progression, programmatic support, mentoring support, impact on RCMI affiliates, intellectual resources, physical resources, and faculty hires. Key challenges included inconsistent data capture and limited evaluation resources, while successes highlighted improved cross-site learning and visibility of program impact. Findings support retaining the original evaluation targets while expanding the framework to include institutional transformation, equitable research environments, and longitudinal societal impact. A conceptual map was developed to depict how mixed methods that include non-quantitative approaches can yield RCMI evaluations that expand upon the current approach, which relies primarily on quantitative data. The authors recommend quantitative targets and non-quantitative strategies to provide context, communicate evidence of success, and inform programmatic changes to deepen the findings and strengthen the rigor of RCMI evaluation practices.
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.