Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40534283›Full record

ArticleAutism : the international journal of research and practice2025

'You feel part of something bigger': Stakeholders' experiences of a long-term community-academic participatory research partnership.

Elizabeth Pellicano, Catherine A Bent, Teresa Iacono, Kristy Capes, Shannon Upson, Kristelle Hudry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Autism : the international journal of research and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Elizabeth PellicanoUniversity College London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7246-8003
Catherine A BentLa Trobe University, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8203-4682
Teresa IaconoLa Trobe University, Australia.
Kristy CapesLa Trobe University, Australia.
Shannon UpsonLa Trobe University, Australia.
Kristelle HudryLa Trobe University, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2752-8345

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many community-academic partnerships are established to conduct meaningful research and practice. Yet, little is written about their sustainability and what does exist suggests that effective partnerships are hard to sustain. In this study, we sought insights into what might support successful, enduring community-academic partnerships focused on early childhood autism service provision. We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with 30 staff connected to a university-based early childhood service in education, allied health, management, and research roles, who had been involved in a decade-long community-academic partnership. We analysed the data using reflexive thematic analysis adopting an inductive approach. We identified three key themes. Staff shared strong values and commitments towards inclusive practice and evidence-based practice, which were embedded in the ethos of the partnership (Theme 1). They reported tangible, mutual benefits from working in partnership, with gains in learning and confidence supporting autistic children and families (Theme 2). Interviewees also highlighted the importance of strong equitable relationships, open communication, and fair processes, even if these were not always straightforward to achieve (Theme 3). These insights illustrate the value of ongoing monitoring of community-academic partnerships seeking to inform autism research programmes, policies and practices, while also building sustained community capacity.Lay AbstractWhen academic researchers work in partnership with community members, the research that gets done is usually more meaningful to people's everyday lives. But these 'community-academic partnerships' can be difficult to set up, and even more difficult to keep going. In this project, we wanted to know what factors help to support the success of long-term community-academic partnerships, specifically for early childhood autism services. We spoke in depth to 30 staff connected to a university-based early childhood service, including early childhood educators, allied health professionals (psychologists, speech pathologists, occupational therapists), people managing the service and researchers. All had been involved in a community-research partnership that had been going on for a decade. Two researchers independent of the service led the interviews and analysis, looking for patterns in participants' responses. We identified three main ideas or 'themes'. Staff spoke of their strong values and commitments towards inclusive practice and evidence-based practice, which were shared among those within the partnership (Theme 1). They felt they had learned a lot from being involved in the partnership and had gained confidence supporting autistic children and families (Theme 2). Above all, though, they spoke of how the relationships within the partnership really mattered to making it a success. They emphasised the importance of trust, good communication and fair processes - but also noted that these things were not always achievable (Theme 3). These findings help us understand how researchers and community members can work effectively together to bring lasting benefits to autism research and services, and to the community more broadly.

Indexed as

Autistic DisorderCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchCommunity-Institutional RelationsChildChild, PreschoolFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInterviews as TopicMaleQualitative ResearchUniversitiescommunity–academic partnershipcommunity engagementearly interventionearly yearsparticipatory researchservice evaluation

Identifiers

PMID40534283
PMCPMC12531394

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.