Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35669755›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in public health2022

Development and Feasibility Testing of the Clinical-Community Linkage Self-Assessment Survey for Community Organizations.

Sarah Fishleder, Jeffrey R Harris, Miruna Petrescu-Prahova, Marlana Kohn, Christian D Helfrich

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Sarah FishlederHealth Promotion Research Center, Department of Health Systems and Population Health, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Jeffrey R HarrisHealth Promotion Research Center, Department of Health Systems and Population Health, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Miruna Petrescu-PrahovaHealth Promotion Research Center, Department of Health Systems and Population Health, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Marlana KohnHealth Promotion Research Center, Department of Health Systems and Population Health, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Christian D HelfrichUS Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research & Development, Washington, DC, United States.

Funding

Transform Dissemination and Implementation Science in CTSA ProgramsUL1TR002319 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI John K. Amory · 2017 to 2026
$100.0M
NCCIH Supplement to NCATS/CTSA Program for KL2 Scholars - M. SoddersKL2TR002317 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Christy Michelle McKinney · 2017 to 2026
$14.5M
Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research CenterU48DP005013 · DP · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI HANNON, MARGARET A · 2014 to 2018
$13.3M
NRSA Training CoreTL1TR002318 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Megan Moore · 2017 to 2026
$8.4M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR002317NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR002318NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002319NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP005013
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Clinical-community linkages (CCLs) can improve health, but few instruments exist to evaluate these partnerships. To address this gap, we develop and test the Clinical-Community Linkage Self-Assessment Survey (CCL Self-Assessment). Materials and Methods: We built on an existing framework and conducted a literature review to guide the design of our survey, and obtained feedback from academic, clinical, and community-based experts. To pretest the instrument, we conducted 10 think-aloud interviews with community-based health-promotion organizations. We performed feasibility testing with 38 staff from 20 community organizations, followed by criterion-validity testing. Results: The 15-item final instrument includes five domains: Nature of the Relationship, Communication, Referral Process, Feedback Loop, and Timeliness. Expert feedback included keeping the CCL Self-Assessment brief and actionable. Think-aloud interviews produced a range of revisions related to item wording, instructions, brevity, and formatting. Feasibility testing showed high response rate and ease of administration. Sites scoring high on the CCL Self-Assessment also scored high on the criterion measure. Discussion: We demonstrate feasibility, as well as face, content, construct, and criterion validity. Initial results suggest the CCL Self-Assessment survey may be used by community organizations to identify strengths and weaknesses of their linkages. Next steps include additional statistical validation and testing to determine how the CCL Self-Assessment survey works in the field as well as providing specific tools to improve linkages.

Indexed as

Referral and ConsultationSelf-AssessmentCommunicationFeasibility StudiesHumansSurveys and Questionnairescommunity health services [MeSH]community networks (MeSH)health promotion (source: MeSH NLM)health servicesprogram evaluation (MeSH)

Identifiers

PMID35669755
PMCPMC9163549

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.