ArticleDiscover public health2025
A qualitative evaluation of a partnership between a local authority and community organisations to improve mental health and wellbeing.
Article in Discover 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
Mental health problems lead to earlier mortality, poor physical health and socioeconomic disadvantage. Some people, including those from black and minority ethnic groups and low-income households, are at higher risk of poor mental health and are less likely to seek support from statutory services. Community Protect (CP) is a model in which a local government public health team acquired funding to support third sector organisations working with marginalised populations. These organisations provided mental health ambassadors, social activities and signposting to mental health support. This qualitative study comprised 28 semi-structured interviews with those involved in delivering CP, and six observations of activities. Topic guides covered barriers and facilitators to CP delivery and perceived benefits. Analysis used the Framework Method. Five themes were identified: trust and collaboration; time; expectations and flexibility; the ambassador role and perceptions of impact. CP relied on trusting relationships built between the different organisations involved, and between organisations and their individual users. The limited timeframe imposed by the funding created a barrier to collaboration when planning CP, meaning it was not always sufficiently tailored to the target populations' needs. Allowing organisations the flexibility to be responsive to their population's needs was beneficial. Benefits included improved mental health and social connection for the users, and improved ability of the local public health team to reach marginalised groups. Community organisations play a key role in prevention and support for mental health problems among minoritised populations. For partnerships with statutory organisations to succeed, funding and timescales need to be realistic, and interventions developed collaboratively. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12982-025-00875-1.
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.