ArticleInternational journal of integrated care
Involving Citizens in Integrated Care. Lessons Learned Through Participatory Action Research in Three Communities in the Netherlands.
Article in International journal of integrated care. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In response to rising healthcare demands, alternative health system models are needed. This study aims to investigate the development of community-involved, cross-domain networks, and to identify factors that facilitate or hamper their growth and sustainability. Methods: This participatory action research used purposive sampling to select three diverse networks. A multi-methods approach of document analysis, observations, dialogue and twenty semi-structured interviews across the networks was applied. The ESSA-framework (Exploring, Shaping, Strengthening, Anchoring) of network development was used to track progression across its stages. Reflexivity was ensured through discussions with the networks, an advisory board, and the study's steering committee. Results: All networks advanced by one ESSA phase; however, one only progressed in interprofessional collaboration. Key factors affecting network development included a shared sense of urgency and community, mode of collaboration, essential roles, and a mix of competencies. Discussion: The limited number of networks limits external validity, yet their diversity, and the mixed methods and reflexivity revealed profound insights into community-involved cross-domain network development. Conclusion: Community-involved cross-domain network development is complex and requires felt urgency, patience and perseverance from all participants. Early engagement of both professionals and citizens is required, supported by network leadership and change-agent skills to drive development.
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.