ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Evaluating a community academic partnership to advance equity-focused cancer genetic implementation research: a qualitative analysis of partner perspectives.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Forming community academic partnerships (CAPs) can increase the applicability, translation, and dissemination of implementation research focused on addressing health inequities within the community setting. We aimed to explore community and academic partners' perspectives on their participation in a novel, multi-disciplinary cancer genetic equity CAP focused on developing a multi-level intervention for breast, ovarian, prostate, and pancreas cancers. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with CAP members. Questions addressed partners' motivations for participation in the CAP, feedback about the partnership, and opportunities for future CAPs. All interviews were audio-recorded, de-identified, transcribed, and then coded inductively by 2 analysts to identify relevant themes. Results: 8 CAP members participated. We identified four main themes including motivations to participate and continue engagement in the CAP, perceived CAP successes, perceived CAP challenges, and suggestions and opportunities for improvement. Participants described a variety of motivations, including learning more about cancer genetics and helping patients and communities. Participants valued the multi-disciplinary collaboration and having facilitated partnership discussions. Challenges included ambiguity of expectations for roles and differing perspectives between providers and community members, sometimes leading to frustrations in discussing solutions to potential barriers. Participants described several suggestions for improving future partnerships, such as more clearly defining expectations for participant roles, being able to create a strong vision and targeted approach, bringing their counterparts into clinical and community spaces to better share differing perspectives, and involving leadership stakeholders in the partnership to help address healthcare system barriers. Discussion: Overall, community and academic members were motivated to participate and engage in a CAP to improve cancer genetic equity.
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.