Understanding collaborative implementation between community and academic partners in a complex intervention: a qualitative descriptive study.
Community-academic partnerships
Implementation science
Primary health care
Program implementation
Qualitative
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Jun 2023
09 Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
03
02
2023
accepted:
30
05
2023
medline:
12
6
2023
pubmed:
10
6
2023
entrez:
9
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Community-academic partnerships (CAPs) can improve the relevance, sustainability, and uptake of new innovations within the community. However, little is known about what topics CAPs focus on and how their discussions and decisions impact implementation at ground level. The objectives of this study were to better understand the activities and learnings from implementation of a complex health intervention by a CAP at the planner/decision-maker level, and how that compared to experiences implementing the program at local sites. The intervention, Health TAPESTRY, was implemented by a nine-partner CAP including academic, charitable organizations, and primary care practices. Meeting minutes were analyzed using qualitative description, latent content analysis, and a member check with key implementors. An open-answer survey about the best and worst elements of the program was completed by clients and health care providers and analyzed using thematic analysis. In total, 128 meeting minutes were analyzed, 278 providers and clients completed the survey, and six people participated in the member check. Prominent topics of discussion categories from the meeting minutes were: primary care sites, volunteer coordination, volunteer experience, internal and external connections, and sustainability and scalability. Clients liked that they learned new things and gained awareness of community programs, but did not like the volunteer visit length. Clinicians liked the regular interprofessional team meetings but found the program time-consuming. An important learning was about who had "voice" at the planner/decision-maker level: many of the topics discussed in meeting minutes were not identified as issues or lasting impacts by clients or providers; this may be due to differing roles and needs, but may also identify a gap. Overall, we identified three phases that could serve as a guide for other CAPs: Phase (1) recruitment, financial support, and data ownership; Phase (2) considerations for modifications and adaptations; Phase (3) active input and reflection.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Community-academic partnerships (CAPs) can improve the relevance, sustainability, and uptake of new innovations within the community. However, little is known about what topics CAPs focus on and how their discussions and decisions impact implementation at ground level. The objectives of this study were to better understand the activities and learnings from implementation of a complex health intervention by a CAP at the planner/decision-maker level, and how that compared to experiences implementing the program at local sites.
METHODS
METHODS
The intervention, Health TAPESTRY, was implemented by a nine-partner CAP including academic, charitable organizations, and primary care practices. Meeting minutes were analyzed using qualitative description, latent content analysis, and a member check with key implementors. An open-answer survey about the best and worst elements of the program was completed by clients and health care providers and analyzed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In total, 128 meeting minutes were analyzed, 278 providers and clients completed the survey, and six people participated in the member check. Prominent topics of discussion categories from the meeting minutes were: primary care sites, volunteer coordination, volunteer experience, internal and external connections, and sustainability and scalability. Clients liked that they learned new things and gained awareness of community programs, but did not like the volunteer visit length. Clinicians liked the regular interprofessional team meetings but found the program time-consuming.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
An important learning was about who had "voice" at the planner/decision-maker level: many of the topics discussed in meeting minutes were not identified as issues or lasting impacts by clients or providers; this may be due to differing roles and needs, but may also identify a gap. Overall, we identified three phases that could serve as a guide for other CAPs: Phase (1) recruitment, financial support, and data ownership; Phase (2) considerations for modifications and adaptations; Phase (3) active input and reflection.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37296452
doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09617-y
pii: 10.1186/s12913-023-09617-y
pmc: PMC10257302
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
606Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
CMAJ. 2019 May 6;191(18):E491-E500
pubmed: 31061074
Implement Sci. 2009 May 21;4:29
pubmed: 19460163
Trials. 2020 Aug 14;21(1):714
pubmed: 32795381
Public Health Nurs. 2017 Nov;34(6):541-546
pubmed: 28762550
Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 07;4:50
pubmed: 19664226
Action Res (Lond). 2021 Jun;19(2):277-300
pubmed: 34539247
Qual Health Res. 2008 Jun;18(6):727-8
pubmed: 18503013
Milbank Q. 2016 Mar;94(1):163-214
pubmed: 26994713
Front Med (Lausanne). 2018 Feb 26;5:48
pubmed: 29536010
Qual Health Res. 2016 Nov;26(13):1802-1811
pubmed: 27340178
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2016 Jan;43(1):93-104
pubmed: 25578512
Res Nurs Health. 2000 Aug;23(4):334-40
pubmed: 10940958
J High Educ Outreach Engagem. 2016;20(2):55-84
pubmed: 28184179
Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2011 Spring;5(1):27-34
pubmed: 21441666
J Community Psychol. 2018 Sep;46(7):941-952
pubmed: 30565736
Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2012 Fall;6(3):289-99
pubmed: 22982842
Ann Fam Med. 2023 Mar-Apr;21(2):132-142
pubmed: 36973055
Front Public Health. 2019 Mar 29;7:64
pubmed: 30984733