"I would love to see these big institutions… throwing their weight around": qualitative findings regarding health and social sector collaborations to address community-level socioeconomic adversity.

Erika M Brown, Taressa K Fraze, Laura M Gottlieb, Caroline Fichtenberg

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Social service organizations report improvements in social services-health care integration in survey during California's medicaid initiative ("CalAIM").BMC public health · 2025
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

4 authors.

Erika M BrownCalifornia Policy Lab, Institute of Research on Labor and Employment, University of California, Berkeley, 2521 Channing Way, Berkeley, CA, 94704, USA. erika.brown@berkeley.edu.

Taressa K FrazeDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, 995 Potrero Ave, San Francisco, CA, 94110, USA.

Laura M GottliebDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, 995 Potrero Ave, San Francisco, CA, 94110, USA.

Caroline FichtenbergDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, 995 Potrero Ave, San Francisco, CA, 94110, USA.

Funding

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation 77370

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth and social sector organizations are increasingly working together to mitigate socioeconomic adversity within their communities. We sought to learn about the motivations, experiences, and perspectives of organizations engaged in these collaborations.

methodsWe conducted semi-structured, 60-minute interviews with 34 leaders from 25 health and social sector organizations between January-April 2021. Interviews explored motivations, benefits and challenges, and ways in which health sector organizations can most effectively address community-level socioeconomic adversity. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed; themes were coded using Dedoose software.

resultsPartnerships were primarily motivated by mission-driven organizations and key health sector leaders who were interested in addressing root causes of poor health; policies such as certificate of need laws and value-based care incentives that aligned community-level investments with health sector organizations' financial interests facilitated these efforts. While partnerships were mostly regarded as mutually beneficial ways to increase impact (for the health sector) and resource access (for the social sector), social sector organizations voiced frustrations regarding the outsized expectations, unsustained interest, and lack of partnership from their health sector collaborators. Despite these frustrations, both health and social sector interviewees supported the health sector's continued involvement in community-level socioeconomic initiatives and expansion of policy and systems efforts.

conclusionsCross-sector, community-level socioeconomic initiatives were mutually beneficial, but social sector organizations experienced more frustrations. Policy and organizational changes within the health sector can further mobilize and sustain support for these efforts.

Indexed as

Qualitative ResearchCooperative BehaviorFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleSocioeconomic FactorsAdvocacyCross-sector partnershipsSocial careSocial determinants of healthSocial sectorSocioeconomic adversity

Identifiers

PMID39075415

DOI10.1186/s12889-024-19465-y

PMCPMC11285253

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.