Cited by 64Health Policy Implementation ScienceCommunity Health and DevelopmentMental Health and Patient Involvement

Characterizing the Use of Research-Community Partnerships in Studies of Evidence-Based Interventions in Children’s Community Services

Open access
Brookman-Frazee, Lauren, Stahmer, Aubyn, Stadnick, Nicole, Chlebowski, Colby, Herschell, Amy, Garland, Ann F.·2016·Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research

Abstract

This study characterized the use of research community partnerships (RCPs) to tailor evidence-based intervention, training, and implementation models for delivery across different childhood problems and service contexts using a survey completed by project principal investigators and community partners. To build on previous RCP research and to explicate the tacit knowledge gained through collaborative efforts, the following were examined: (1) characteristics of studies using RCP models; (2) RCP functioning, processes, and products; (3) processes of tailoring evidence-based practices for community implementation; and (4) perceptions of the benefits and challenges of collaborating with community providers and consumers. Results indicated that researchers were solely or jointly involved in the formation of almost all of the RCPs; interpersonal and operational processes were perceived as primary challenges; community partners' roles included greater involvement in implementation and participant recruitment than more traditional research activities; and the partnership process was perceived to increase the relevance and "fit" of interventions and research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10488-014-0622-9

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Other research has repeatedly shown that relationships and partnership processes - so-called intermediate outcomes - are key to the sustainability of long-term community-academic partnerships and require close monitoring by partnership members to ensure their longevity.

    “Yet, other research has repeatedly shown that relationships and partnership processes – so-called intermediate outcomes – are in fact key to the sustainability of long-term community–academic partnerships (Brookman-Frazee et al., 2016; Pellecchia et al., 2018) and the ones that require close monitoring by partnership members to ensure their longevity.”

    From ‘You feel part of something bigger’: Stakeholders’ experiences of a long-term community–academic participatory research partnership (2025) · cites this paper as Brookman-Frazee et al., 2016

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Engaging stakeholders across multiple levels of an implementation ecosystem is recommended best practice for implementation researchers.

    “Engaging stakeholders across multiple levels of an implementation ecosystem (e.g., policy/legislative, funders, community, organizational, provider, client/patient) is recommended best practice for implementation researchers [30] and as indicated in the multi-level nature of the majority of implementation frameworks.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brookman-Frazee, L., Stahmer, A., Stadnick, N., Chlebowski, C., Herschell, A., & Garland, A. F.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • University of California Davis Medical Center (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • University of San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
Brookman-Frazee, Lauren
Venue
Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research
Published
2015-01-13
Volume
43
Issue
1
Pages
93-104
ISSN
  • 0894-587X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3289
OpenAlex
W1989069101
Cited by
64
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3
FWCI
6.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • National Institute of Mental Health (K23MH077584, R01MH094317)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Community Health and Development
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Keywords
research-community partnerships, evidence-based interventions, evidence-based practice implementation, community service providers, participant recruitment, partnership challenges, child mental health services
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Child, Child, Preschool, Community Mental Health Services, Community-Institutional Relations, Cooperative Behavior, Humans, Infant, Middle Aged, Research Personnel, Social Welfare, Evidence-Based Practice, Community-Based Participatory Research, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review