Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32052531›Full record

ArticleHealth & social care in the community2020

Complexity in partnerships: A qualitative examination of collaborative depression care in primary care clinics and community-based organisations in California, United States.

Stuart Henderson, Jenny L Wagner, Melissa M Gosdin, Theresa J Hoeft, Jürgen Unützer, Laura Rath, Ladson Hinton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health & social care in the community, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

7 authors.

Stuart HendersonSchool of Medicine, Office of Research Evaluation Unit, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8634-7130
Jenny L WagnerSchool of Medicine, Office of Research Evaluation Unit, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6414-4279
Melissa M GosdinCenter for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Theresa J HoeftDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Jürgen UnützerDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Laura RathArchstone Foundation, Long Beach, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3619-0224
Ladson HintonDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Partnering across health clinics and community organisations, while worthwhile for improving health and well-being, is challenging and time consuming. Even partnerships that have essential elements for success in place face inevitable challenges. To better understand how cross-organisational partnerships work in practice, this paper examines collaborations between six primary care clinics and community-based organisations in the United States that were part of an initiative to address late-life depression using an enhanced collaborative care model (Archstone Foundation Care Partners Project). As part of an evaluation of the Care Partners Project, 54 key informant interviews and 10 focus groups were conducted from 2015 to 2017. Additionally, more than 80 project-related documents were reviewed. Qualitative thematic analysis was used to code the transcripts and identify prominent themes in the data. Examining clinic and community organisation partnerships in practice highlighted their inherent complexity. The partnerships were fluid and constantly evolving, shaped by a multiplicity of perspectives and values, and vulnerable to unpredictability. Care Partners sites negotiated the complexity of their partnerships drawing upon three main strategies: adaptation (allowing for flexibility and rapid change); integration (providing opportunities for multi-level partnerships within and across organisations) and cultivation (fostering a commitment to the partnership and its value). These strategies provided opportunities for Care Partners collaborators to work with the inherent complexity of partnering. Intentionally acknowledging and embracing such complexity rather than trying to reduce or avoid it, may allow clinic and community collaborators to strengthen and sustain their partnerships.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorSocial SupportCaliforniaDepressionFocus GroupsHumansPrimary Health CarePublic-Private Sector PartnershipsSocial BehaviorSocial WelfareUnited Statescollaborative caredepressionevaluating complex interventionsmulti-sector collaborationsolder adultsqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID32052531
PMCPMC7318288

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.