Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40122956›Full record

ArticlePrevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research2025

Community Coalition Functioning, Collaborative Structure, and Coalition Models: Enhancing Support for Evidence-Based Practice Implementation.

Youngjo Im, Louis D Brown, Rebecca Wells, M Yvonne Gaddy, Sarah M Chilenski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 2025. 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. Improvements in Capacity Among Community Coalitions Receiving Technical Assistance Through the Coalition Check-Up.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2026
    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

5 authors.

Youngjo ImEdna Bennett Pierce Prevention Research Center, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA. yki5012@psu.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-9524-8508
Louis D BrownDepartment of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health, El Paso, TX, 79905, USA.
Rebecca WellsDepartment of Management, Policy, and Community Health, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
M Yvonne GaddyDepartment of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health, El Paso, TX, 79905, USA.
Sarah M ChilenskiEdna Bennett Pierce Prevention Research Center, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA.

Funding

Randomized trial of a data-driven technical assistance system for drug prevention coalitionsR01DA045815 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI BROWN, LOUIS DAVIS, CHILENSKI, SARAH · 2019 to 2023
$3.8M
NIAAA NIH HHS 5R01DA045815NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA045815
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Coalition initiatives that use evidence-based practices (EBPs) have been shown to reduce youth substance use. Despite the importance of promoting community coalitions' EBP use, there is little empirical evidence about how to do so. This study aimed to identify distinct coalition profiles that foster EBP use by examining clusters of coalitions characteristics and the type of coalition model followed. We analyzed data from 67 coalitions participating in the Coalition Check-Up, a cluster randomized trial designed to increase community anti-drug coalition capacity. Using k-means clustering approach, we identified subgroups of coalitions based on two domains of coalition capacity-functioning and collaborative structure, each also considering coalition model type. We then examined, using analysis of variance (ANOVA), the degree to which each subgroup of coalitions used EBPs. We found that (a) coalitions with higher levels of functioning characterized by sustainability, science-based approaches to prevention, community knowledge, and efficiency, using explicit theory-based models were associated with higher use of EBPs, (b) coalitions with lower levels of collaborative structure defined by formalized procedures, decentralization, sectoral diversity, and intersectoral communication, using explicit theory-based models were associated with higher EBP use, and (c) low functioning coalitions using no model were associated with the lowest level of EBP use. Characterizing coalitions' functioning, collaborative structure, and models used may help coalition leaders and technical assistance providers enhance coalition capacity that enables the use of EBPs. Findings also indicated the importance of using explicit theory-based models to increase coalition impact.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorEvidence-Based PracticeHealth Care CoalitionsSubstance-Related DisordersHumansModels, OrganizationalCoalition functioningCoalition modelCollaborative structureEvidence-based practicesK-means clustering

Identifiers

PMID40122956
PMCPMC13262595

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.