Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37296452›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2023

Understanding collaborative implementation between community and academic partners in a complex intervention: a qualitative descriptive study.

Rebecca Clark, Jessica Gaber, Julie Datta, Samina Talat, Sivan Bomze, Sarah Marentette-Brown, Cherie Gagnon, Doug Oliver, Larkin Lamarche, Pamela Forsyth and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

13 authors.

Rebecca ClarkMcMaster University, 100 Main Street West, L8P 1H6, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Jessica GaberMcMaster University, 100 Main Street West, L8P 1H6, Hamilton, ON, Canada. jgaber@mcmaster.ca.
Julie DattaMcMaster University, 100 Main Street West, L8P 1H6, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Samina TalatCanadian Red Cross, 5700 Cancross Court, Mississauga, ON, L5R 3E9, Canada.
Sivan BomzeCanadian Red Cross, 5700 Cancross Court, Mississauga, ON, L5R 3E9, Canada.
Sarah Marentette-BrownCanadian Red Cross, 5700 Cancross Court, Mississauga, ON, L5R 3E9, Canada.
Cherie GagnonWindsor-Essex Compassion Care Community, 6038 Empress Street, N8T 1B5, Windsor, ON, Canada.
Doug OliverMcMaster University, 100 Main Street West, L8P 1H6, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Larkin LamarcheMcMaster University, 100 Main Street West, L8P 1H6, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Pamela ForsythMcMaster University, 100 Main Street West, L8P 1H6, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Tracey CarrMcMaster University, 100 Main Street West, L8P 1H6, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
David PriceMcMaster University, 100 Main Street West, L8P 1H6, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Dee ManginMcMaster University, 100 Main Street West, L8P 1H6, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunity-academic partnerships (CAPs) can improve the relevance, sustainability, and uptake of new innovations within the community. However, little is known about what topics CAPs focus on and how their discussions and decisions impact implementation at ground level. The objectives of this study were to better understand the activities and learnings from implementation of a complex health intervention by a CAP at the planner/decision-maker level, and how that compared to experiences implementing the program at local sites.

methodsThe intervention, Health TAPESTRY, was implemented by a nine-partner CAP including academic, charitable organizations, and primary care practices. Meeting minutes were analyzed using qualitative description, latent content analysis, and a member check with key implementors. An open-answer survey about the best and worst elements of the program was completed by clients and health care providers and analyzed using thematic analysis.

resultsIn total, 128 meeting minutes were analyzed, 278 providers and clients completed the survey, and six people participated in the member check. Prominent topics of discussion categories from the meeting minutes were: primary care sites, volunteer coordination, volunteer experience, internal and external connections, and sustainability and scalability. Clients liked that they learned new things and gained awareness of community programs, but did not like the volunteer visit length. Clinicians liked the regular interprofessional team meetings but found the program time-consuming.

conclusionsAn important learning was about who had "voice" at the planner/decision-maker level: many of the topics discussed in meeting minutes were not identified as issues or lasting impacts by clients or providers; this may be due to differing roles and needs, but may also identify a gap. Overall, we identified three phases that could serve as a guide for other CAPs: Phase (1) recruitment, financial support, and data ownership; Phase (2) considerations for modifications and adaptations; Phase (3) active input and reflection.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelLearningHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesCommunity-academic partnershipsImplementation sciencePrimary health careProgram implementationQualitative

Identifiers

PMID37296452
PMCPMC10257302

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.