ReviewClinical interventions in aging2008
Evaluating a community-based participatory research project for elderly mental healthcare in rural America.
Review in Clinical interventions in aging, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Collaborative Care for Psychiatric Disorders in Older Adults: A Systematic Review.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2017Pooled it
- Harnessing Human-Centered Design for Evidence-Based Psychosocial Interventions and Implementation Strategies in Community Settings: Protocol for Redesign to Improve Usability, Engagement, and Appropriateness.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- The Value of Social Network Analysis for Evaluating Academic-Community Partnerships and Collaborations for Social Determinants of Health Research.Ethnicity & disease · 2017Article
- Collaborative research between clinicians and researchers: a multiple case study of implementation.Implementation science : IS · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this evaluation was to explore the collaborative nature of partners in a rural mental health program for the elderly, and to test an adapted method of assessing the collaborative process. Sixteen collaborative partners were interviewed to explore ratings of collaboration across 6 domains identified as critical to participatory research. Results indicate that the context of rural Missouri and uniqueness of the program necessitated an approach to collaboration that began with a top-down approach, but greater community responsibility developed over time. Partners recognized the efforts of the program's directors to seek input. Most were satisfied with their roles and the degree of success achieved by the program, although several wanted to have more input in the future in some domains, but not in others. Interviews revealed numerous barriers to achieving sustainability. Methods to improve the assessment of collaboration are discussed and areas for improvement are offered.
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.