ArticleJournal of public health research2012
An Exploratory Analysis of Network Characteristics and Quality of Interactions among Public Health Collaboratives.
Article in Journal of public health research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing Priorities in a Statewide Cardiovascular and Diabetes Health Collaborative Based on the Results of a Needs Assessment: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Increasing use of systems science in cardiovascular disease prevention to understand how to address geographic health disparities in communities with a disproportionate burden of risk.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Rapid evidence review: Policy actions for the integration of public health and health care in the United States.Frontiers in public health · 2023Review
- Resilience and fragmentation in healthcare coalitions: The link between resource contributions and centrality in health-related interorganizational networks.Social networks · 2022Article
- Best of ARM: Evaluating engagement in multisector community health networks: The case of tribal organizations.Health services research · 2022Article
- Does partnership diversity in intersectoral policymaking matter for health promoting intervention packages' composition? A multiple-case study in the Netherlands.Health promotion international · 2021Article
- Article
- Physical activity promotion in an urban district: Analyzing the mechanisms of interorganizational cooperation.PloS one · 2021Article
- Understanding evidence-informed decision-making: a rural interorganizational breastfeeding network.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Community networks of services for pregnant and parenting women with problematic substance use.PloS one · 2018Article
- Rapid organizational network analysis to assess coordination of services for HIV testing clients: an exploratory study.Journal of HIV/AIDS & social services · 2018Article
- Assessing Collaboration in a National Research Partnership in Quality Improvement in Indigenous Primary Health Care: A Network Approach.Frontiers in public health · 2018Article
- A catalyst for system change: a case study of child health network formation, evolution and sustainability in Canada.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- Mapping Collaborative Relations among Canada's Chronic Disease Prevention Organizations.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2016Article
- Patterns in PARTNERing across Public Health Collaboratives.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2015Article
- New perspectives on the "silo effect": initial comparisons of network structures across public health collaboratives.American journal of public health · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractWhile the benefits of collaboration have become widely accepted and the practice of collaboration is growing within the public health system, a paucity of research exists that examines factors and mechanisms related to effective collaboration between public health and their partner organizations. The purpose of this paper is to address this gap by exploring the structural and organizational characteristics of public health collaboratives. Design and Methods. Using both social network analysis and traditional statistical methods, we conduct an exploratory secondary data analysis of 11 public health collaboratives chosen from across the United States. All collaboratives are part of the PARTNER (www.partnertool.net) database. We analyze data to identify relational patterns by exploring the structure (the way that organizations connect and exchange relationships), in relation to perceptions of value and trust, explanations for varying reports of success, and factors related to outcomes. We describe the characteristics of the collaboratives, types of resource contributions, outcomes of the collaboratives, perceptions of success, and reasons for success. We found high variation and significant differences within and between these collaboratives including perceptions of success. There were significant relationships among various factors such as resource contributions, reasons cited for success, and trust and value perceived by organizations. We find that although the unique structure of each collaborative makes it challenging to identify a specific set of factors to determine when a collaborative will be successful, the organizational characteristics and interorganizational dynamics do appear to impact outcomes. We recommend a quality improvement process that suggests matching assessment to goals and developing action steps for performance improvement. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: the authors would like to thank the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Public Health Program for funding for this research.
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.