Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26994713›Full record

SynthesisThe Milbank quarterly2016

Community-Academic Partnerships: A Systematic Review of the State of the Literature and Recommendations for Future Research.

Amy Drahota, Rosemary D Meza, Brigitte Brikho, Meghan Naaf, Jasper A Estabillo, Emily D Gomez, Sarah F Vejnoska, Sarah Dufek, Aubyn C Stahmer, Gregory A Aarons

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Milbank quarterly, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 196 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
196citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

196 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

136 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors.

Amy DrahotaSan Diego State University.
Rosemary D MezaChild and Adolescent Services Research Center.
Brigitte BrikhoSan Diego State University.
Meghan NaafSan Diego State University.
Jasper A EstabilloChild and Adolescent Services Research Center.
Emily D GomezSan Diego State University.
Sarah F VejnoskaChild and Adolescent Services Research Center.
Sarah DufekWeill Cornell Medical College.
Aubyn C StahmerChild and Adolescent Services Research Center.
Gregory A AaronsChild and Adolescent Services Research Center.

Funding

IMPLEMENTATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IRI-MHSR25MH080916 · NIMH · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Byron James Powell · 2009 to 2026
$3.7M
Developing the Autism Model of Implementation for ASD Community ProvidersK01MH093477 · NIMH · SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI DRAHOTA, AMY · 2012 to 2016
$927k
NIMH NIH HHS K01MH093477NIMH NIH HHS R25 MH080916NIMH NIH HHS R25MH080916
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

policy pointsCommunities, funding agencies, and institutions are increasingly involving community stakeholders as partners in research, to provide firsthand knowledge and insight. Based on our systematic review of major literature databases, we recommend using a single term, community-academic partnership (CAP), and a conceptual definition to unite multiple research disciplines and strengthen the field. Interpersonal and operational factors that facilitate or hinder the collaborative process have been consistently identified, including "trust among partners" and "respect among partners" (facilitating interpersonal factors) and "excessive time commitment" (hindering operational factor). Once CAP processes and characteristics are better understood, the effectiveness of collaborative partner involvement can be tested. CONTEXT: Communities, funding agencies, and institutions are increasingly involving community stakeholders as partners in research. Community stakeholders can provide firsthand knowledge and insight, thereby increasing research relevance and feasibility. Despite the greater emphasis and use of community-academic partnerships (CAP) across multiple disciplines, definitions of partnerships and methodologies vary greatly, and no systematic reviews consolidating this literature have been published. The purpose of this article, then, is to facilitate the continued growth of this field by examining the characteristics of CAPs and the current state of the science, identifying the facilitating and hindering influences on the collaborative process, and developing a common term and conceptual definition for use across disciplines.

methodsOur systematic search of 6 major literature databases generated 1,332 unique articles, 50 of which met our criteria for inclusion and provided data on 54 unique CAPs. We then analyzed studies to describe CAP characteristics and to identify the terms and methods used, as well as the common influences on the CAP process and distal outcomes.

findingsCAP research spans disciplines, involves a variety of community stakeholders, and focuses on a large range of study topics. CAP research articles, however, rarely report characteristics such as membership numbers or duration. Most studies involved case studies using qualitative methods to collect data on the collaborative process. Although various terms were used to describe collaborative partnerships, few studies provided conceptual definitions. Twenty-three facilitating and hindering factors influencing the CAP collaboration process emerged from the literature. Outcomes from the CAPs most often included developing or refining tangible products.

conclusionsBased on our systematic review, we recommend using a single term, community-academic partnership, as well as a conceptual definition to unite multiple research disciplines. In addition, CAP characteristics and methods should be reported more systematically to advance the field (eg, to develop CAP evaluation tools). We have identified the most common influences that facilitate and hinder CAPs, which in turn should guide their development and sustainment.

Indexed as

Community-Based Participatory ResearchCommunity-Institutional RelationsCooperative BehaviorDatabases, BibliographicHumansUniversitiescollaborationcommunity-academic partnershipcommunity-based participatory researchresearch design

Identifiers

PMID26994713
PMCPMC4941973

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.