ArticleCureus2024
Impact of a Community-University Partnership on the Quality of Life in a Local Community: A Validated Survey.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.
- Determinants of perceived beneficial impact of a community-university partnership in an urban environment: a cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the present study was to develop and validate a self-reported instrument exploring the perceived potential contribution and impact of a community-university partnership (CUP) on the local community's quality of life.
methodsA 13-item questionnaire was developed and administered to a convenience sample of 65 residents of the municipality of Egaleo, a metropolitan area of Athens, Greece, where the main campus of the University of West Attica is located. The questionnaire was self-administered and filled in at two different time points by the same participants. The 13 items of the questionnaire, pertaining to health promotion and wellness, research, upgrading of services, economic development, infrastructures, physical activity, cleaning services, green sector, social protection, kindergarten/nursery services, education, cultural sector, and technical works, were stated in the form of a three-point Likert scale. Factor analysis was performed, and the underlying factors' reliability, convergent, and discriminant validity as well as the test-retest reliability were assessed.
resultsThe mean age of participants was 46 years; 70.8% were females. All items of the questionnaire were retained in the factor analysis; the latter revealed the existence of two underlying factors, interpreted as "overall, comprehensive impact of the CUP" and "domain-specific contributions of the CUP." High reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.860 and 0.880 for the two factors, respectively) and convergent and discriminant validity were documented; the test-retest reliability indicated a stable tool for both factors (Spearman's rho = 0.85 and 0.83, respectively, p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe instrument can be used in the future; surveys are expected to provide further, valuable insight on several aspects of the CUP.
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.