ArticleMaternal and child health journal2026
Strengthening Collaboration Between Community-Based Organizations, State Title V Agencies, and Funders by Uplifting Community-Rooted Evidence: A Qualitative Research Study.
Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhat is considered 'evidence' in maternal and child health (MCH) has major implications for which organizations and initiatives receive funding. Despite growing recognition of the importance of community-rooted work, state and jurisdictional MCH agencies, (Title V) operate from an evidence framework that typically prioritizes empirical research and large-scale evaluations over community-rooted evidence (CRE).
objectivesThis study sought to examine how CRE informs decision-making within Title V agencies, understand capacity-building needs of community-based organizations (CBOs), and explore strengthening relationships between CBOs and Title V.
methodsThis qualitative study interviewed Title V and CBO staff to explore current CRE perceptions and funder/CBO relationships. 16 CBO and 11 Title V staff participated in compensated interviews from February to July 2024. Interviews were conducted, transcribed, coded, and analyzed using a thematic analysis approach.
resultsCBO interviewees stressed the need to reimagine misaligned funder and CBO relationships to be rooted in trust, allow CBOs agency to define metrics of success for their work, recognize the credibility of CRE including qualitative data and storytelling, and introduce more flexibility into funding opportunities and reporting structures. Title V respondents expressed capacity building needs around how to operationalize CRE in their work and decision-making practices, as well as build CBO capacity. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: Funders including Title V can support tailored, innovative, and community-driven solutions to MCH challenges through uplifting CRE in evidence frameworks, investing in trust-based relationships with CBOs, and supporting CBO capacity building. Recommendations for how Title V can operationalize CRE in their work are also provided.
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.