ArticleActa medica Philippina2023
Definition and Conceptualization of Collaboration in Drug Rehabilitation: Systematic Synthesis and Comparison Using a Scoping Review Approach.
Article in Acta medica Philippina, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Although interagency collaboration in drug treatment and rehabilitation has been substantially studied, a lack of consensus on the nomenclature and definition of collaboration remains an unresolved issue in public health policy and practice. To facilitate further consensus, this review analyses previously used definition, conceptualization, and theorization on interagency collaboration in the field of drug rehabilitation. Methods: We conducted evidence synthesis using a scoping review approach. This review is based on searches using the MEDLINE, CINAHL Complete, Embase, and PsychINFO databases and used the protocol proposed by Arksey and O'Malley. Results: A total of 6,259 papers were retrieved from database and citation searches, 33 of which were eligible for inclusion in the analysis after screening and evaluation. Although the definitions varied, the common elements included (a) the presence of at least two entities, which were either services, programs or organizations; (b) these entities collaborated or shared resources; (c) partnership went through a development process; and (d) the intent of collaboration was to achieve a common purpose. There were five means of conceptualizing collaboration: (a) degrees, or level of intensity and formality; (b) elements, or the constitutive structure and activities; (c) stages, or the development of partnership over time; (d) levels, or the focus of the collaborative; and (e) type, or a distinction between collaboration on in policy and practice. Conclusion: Scholarship in this field can benefit from studies that conceptualize collaboration not only crosssectionally through the description of degrees, elements, levels, and type, but also by considering the stages dimension of collaboration (i.e., evolution of collaboration initiative over time). Countries or jurisdictions may need to formalize a term and definition for collaboration as it applies to initiatives within their territories.
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.