Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25962873›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational science2015

Federally Qualified Health Centers' Capacity and Readiness for Research Collaborations: Implications for Clinical-Academic-Community Partnerships.

Heather M Brandt, Vicki M Young, Dayna A Campbell, Seul Ki Choi, Jessica S Seel, Daniela B Friedman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Research Infrastructure and Capacity in Federally Qualified Health Centers.Journal of health care for the poor and underserved · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Heather M BrandtDepartment of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA.
Vicki M YoungSouth Carolina Primary Health Care Association, Clinical Quality Improvement Department, Columbia, South Carolina, USA.
Dayna A CampbellSouth Carolina Primary Health Care Association, Clinical Quality Improvement Department, Columbia, South Carolina, USA.
Seul Ki ChoiDepartment of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA.
Jessica S SeelDepartment of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA.
Daniela B FriedmanDepartment of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA.

Funding

HEALTH PROMOTION AND DISEASE PREVENTION RESEARCH CENTERS: CENTER PROPOSAL CAT. 1U48DP001936 · DP · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AT COLUMBIA · PI WILCOX, SARA · 2009 to 2013
$7.3M
Faith, Activity, and Nutrition: Dissemination in Underserved CommunitiesU48DP005000 · DP · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AT COLUMBIA · PI WILCOX, SARA · 2014 to 2019
$5.9M
ACL HHS U48DP005000NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP001936NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48/DP001936NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP005000NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48/DP005000-01S2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFederally qualified health centers (FQHCs) provide a health care safety net for underserved populations and contribute unique expertise to research that could further enhance quality of patient care. The purpose of this research was to assess interest in, readiness to, and capacity for conducting research in FQHCs in South Carolina (SC).

methodsA Web-based survey was administered to 20 FQHCs across SC. Fourteen representatives of FQHCs completed the 39-item survey that assessed research experience and interest, partnerships and funding, barriers and benefits to research participation, training and technical assistance needs, and research capacity.

resultsFQHCs are interested in conducting research. FQHCs reported that health center leadership, organizational benefit, active engagement of staff, and clear roles for partners were important factors for successful partnerships. Inequity of budget and resources were the greatest challenges encountered. Improved patient outcomes, additional resources for the center, reduction in disparities, and academic partnerships were considered benefits for participation. FQHCs were interested in training and technical assistance opportunities for research funding and best practices for the use of research to inform programs and services.

conclusionsFQHCs are willing to collaborate on research. For successful research partnerships, collaborators should understand FQHCs' challenges and barriers to participation.

Indexed as

Community Health CentersCommunity-Institutional RelationsCooperative BehaviorFederal GovernmentHumanscapacityfederally qualified health centerreadinessresearch partnership

Identifiers

PMID25962873
PMCPMC4553115

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.