ArticleProgress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action2017
A Retrospective on the Vision for
Article in Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Food for Thought: Opportunities to Improve Diversity, Inclusion, Representation, and Participation in Epidemiology.American journal of epidemiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The organizers founded Progress in Community Health Partnerships with a commitment to improving our understanding of community-based participatory research (CBPR) and its use in community-academic/institutional health partnerships. Following Rogers's Diffusion of Innovations, they reasoned that expanded adoption would occur through academic and community partner recognition of CBPR's relative advantage over previous approaches; its compatibility with the values, past experience and needs of potential adopters; its ease of understanding and use; its capacity for experimentation and refinement; and its production of observable results. We now assess the journal's progress toward realizing the vision, as well as issues and problems the organizers identified. We map the journal's content over its first decade onto the initial vision by examining the record of submissions and publications across the eight types of articles and the journal's record of rejections and publications. In remembering that Rogers's study of innovations requires both technical and social change, we discuss the difference between understanding how to do something and actually putting an innovation into action that becomes standard practice at both individual and systemic levels. We observe that the large number of Original Research and Works-in-Progress/Lessons Learned manuscripts, submitted and published, reflect traditional expectations for faculty research productivity. We suggest that sustainability, which rated of lower importance within the initial vision, has gained in importance among community and academic partners; however, it will gain added attention only with changed university expectations of researchers. We further suggest that the study of partnerships involved in researching and improving public health should be expanded beyond the current focus on CBPR.
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.