Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40437582›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2025

Building healthcare-community partnerships: process evaluation of a coalition approach to addressing cancer survivors' health-related social needs.

Shelby Wyand, Laura C Schubel, Mandi L Pratt-Chapman, Marjanna Smith, Jessica Rivera Rivera, Karey M Sutton, Judith Lee Smith, Susan A Sabatino, Elizabeth A Rohan, Hannah Arem

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

10 authors.

Shelby Wyand *Center for Health Equity Research, MedStar Health Research Institute, Columbia, MD, USA. shelby.a.wyand@medstar.net.
Laura C Schubel *Implementation Science, MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Mandi L Pratt-ChapmanThe George Washington University Cancer Center, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Marjanna SmithImplementation Science, MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Jessica Rivera RiveraImplementation Science, MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Karey M SuttonCenter for Health Equity Research, MedStar Health Research Institute, Columbia, MD, USA.
Judith Lee SmithDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Susan A SabatinoDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Elizabeth A RohanDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Hannah AremImplementation Science, MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA.

Funding

CDC HHS U01DP006639
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCoalitions involving both healthcare organizations and community organizations, are a way of providing community support to patients. However, the impact of these collaborations and partner satisfaction can be hard to measure without the use of a theoretical framework to guide progress.

methodsIn January 2023 we established the BEAT-C coalition, guided by the Community Coalition Action Theory (CCAT), to improve clinical-community linkages for addressing non-medical needs among individuals affected by cancer in the Washington, D.C. region. To create broad representation, we invited organizations focused on faith, older adults, cancer support, health promotion, healthy food access, and community health to join. The coalition dedicated significant effort at the outset to establish trust, cultivate relationships, and define shared values, mission, goals, and objectives. To assess coalition functioning, we administered a modified version of the Coalition Self-Assessment Survey (CSAS) in December 2023.

resultsSixteen individuals representing 10 organizations completed the adapted CSAS. Respondents generally responded positively regarding the coalition and made decisions primarily through discussion and agreement (75.0%). Respondents noted respect for leadership (81.3%) and respect for and from fellow coalition members (100.0%). While 56.3% reported meaningful action through the coalition, 31.3% thought there could be more meaningful action. Qualitative feedback mirrored these findings: participants positively regarded the coalition’s responsiveness and noted activities occurring through partnerships developed from the coalition, but some respondents emphasized a desire to act more swiftly.

conclusionOur research described facilitators and barriers to early implementation of a theory-driven collaborative coalition to enhance cancer survivor support. Through the continued efforts of the coalition and increased community capacity building, the multi-disciplinary efforts of the coalition have potential to address the needs of cancer survivors.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsCommunity-Institutional RelationsHealth Care CoalitionsCommunity NetworksCooperative BehaviorDistrict of ColumbiaHumansCancer survivorsCommunity-based organizationsCommunity engagementHealthcare coalitions

Identifiers

PMID40437582
PMCPMC12117768

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.