Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38965627›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2024

Successes and challenges of partnership working to tackle health inequalities using collaborative approaches to community-based research: mixed methods analysis of focus group evidence.

L J M Thomson, H Waterson, H J Chatterjee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

L J M ThomsonUCL Arts and Sciences, University College London, London, UK. linda.thomson@ucl.ac.uk.
H WatersonUCL Arts and Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
H J ChatterjeeUCL Arts and Sciences, University College London, London, UK. h.chatterjee@ucl.ac.uk.

Funding

UK Research and Innovation/Arts and Humanities Research Council UKRI/AHRC: AH/W006405/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe concept of collaborative approaches involves community residents in joint decision-making processes to maintain or enhance their material and social conditions. During COVID-19, public services saw the benefits of actively collaborating with communities and involving residents in decision-making processes. As communities have resources and assets, they are well-placed to contribute to developing local health and wellbeing initiatives. An interdisciplinary and nationally funded three-phase research programme, "Mobilising community assets to tackle health inequalities", was established with the objective of utilising local, cultural, and natural assets to support health and wellbeing. The current study aimed to synthesise evidence collected by research teams awarded funding in phase one of the programme, comprising academic and non-academic, health and social care, voluntary and community partners.

methodsTen online focus groups were conducted with research teams from across the UK exploring the successes and challenges of partnership working to tackle health inequalities using collaborative approaches to community-based research. Eight focus group questions were split between partnership working and health inequalities.

resultsThematic and content analysis produced 185 subthemes from which 12 themes were identified. Major themes representing an above average number of coded responses were research evidence; funding; relationships with partners; health inequalities and deprivation; community involvement; and health service and integrated care systems. Minor themes were link workers and social prescribing; training and support; place-based factors; longevity of programmes; setting up and scaling up programmes; and mental health.

conclusionsSuccesses included employing practice-based and arts-based methods, being part of a research project for those not normally involved in research, sharing funding democratically, building on established relationships, and the vital role that local assets play in involving communities. Challenges involved a lack of sustainable financial support, the short-term nature of funding, inconsistencies in reaching the poorest people, obtaining the right sort of research evidence, making sufficient research progress, building relationships with already over-burdened health care staff, and redressing the balance of power in favour of communities. Despite the challenges, participants were mainly optimistic that collective approaches and meaningful co-production would create opportunities for future research partnerships with communities.

Indexed as

COVID-19Focus GroupsCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchCooperative BehaviorHealth InequitiesHealth Status DisparitiesHumansSARS-CoV-2United KingdomCommunitiesCommunity assetsCommunity-based participatory researchFocus groupsHealth inequalitiesIntegrated careMixed methodsPartnershipScalabilitySustainability

Identifiers

PMID38965627
PMCPMC11223342

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.