Developing a practice-academic partnership logic model

MacPhee, Maura

doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2008.08.003

Cited by 41 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The model has been used as a planning and/or evaluation framework for a wide range of participants and settings, such as palliative care (6, 7); professional development programs for medical and health professionals (8, 9); programs for prevention of diabetes (10), HIV (11), breast cancer (12), and teenage pregnancy (13); research capacity in practice (14–16), primary care reform (17, 18); and community health promotions (19, 20). Although there has been increasing interest in the literature on planning and evaluation frameworks, the Logic Model has not been popularly used in the social service settings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Evaluation of a Train-the-Trainer Workshop for Social Service Workers to Develop Community-Based Family Interventions

Lai

Stewart

Mui

et al. 2017

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionEvaluation studies on train-the-trainer workshops (TTTs) to develop family well-being interventions are limited in the literature. The Logic Model offers a framework to place some important concepts and tools of intervention science in the hands of frontline service providers. This paper reports on the evaluation of a TTT for a large community-based program to enhance family well-being in Hong Kong.MethodsThe 2-day TTT introduced positive psychology themes (relevant to the programs that the trainees would deliver) and the Logic Model (which provides a framework to guide intervention development and evaluation) for social service workers to guide their community-based family interventions. The effectiveness of the TTT was examined by self-administered questionnaires that assessed trainees’ changes in learning (perceived knowledge, self-efficacy, attitude, and intention), trainees’ reactions to training content, knowledge sharing, and benefits to their service organizations before and after the training and then 6 months and 1 year later. Missing data were replaced by baseline values in an intention-to-treat analysis. Focus group interviews were conducted approximately 6 months after training.ResultsFifty-six trainees (79% women) joined the TTT. Forty-four and 31 trainees completed the 6-month and 1-year questionnaires, respectively. The trainees indicated that the workshop was informative and well organized. The TTT-enhanced trainees’ perceived knowledge, self-efficacy, and attitudes toward the application of the Logic Model and positive psychology constructs in program design. These changes were present with small to large effect size that persisted to the 1 year follow-up. The skills learned were used to develop 31 family interventions that were delivered to about 1,000 families. Qualitative feedback supported the quantitative results.ConclusionThis TTT offers a practical example of academic-community partnerships that promote capacity among community social service workers. Goals included sharing basic tools of intervention development and evaluation, and the TTT offered, therefore, the potential of learning skills that extended beyond the lifetime of a single program.Clinical trial registrationThe research protocol was registered at the National Institutes of Health (identifier number: NCT01796275).

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Evaluation of a Train-the-Trainer Workshop for Social Service Workers to Develop Community-Based Family Interventions

Lai

Stewart

Mui

et al. 2017

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Capacity building is an on-going, collaborative process involving education and practical applications; it aims to foster systemic, policy, and structural change in diverse contexts. It incorporates best practices and action research, and progress depends on the strength of relationships, level of knowledge exchange, and communication between partners (7–9). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Global mental health: transformative capacity building in Nicaragua

Sapag

Herrera

Trainor

et al. 2013

Global Health Action

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMental health is increasingly recognised as integral to good public health, but this area continues to lack sufficient planning, resources, and global strategy. It is a pressing concern in Latin America, where social determinants of health aggravate existing inequities in access to health services. Nicaragua faces serious mental health needs and challenges. One key strategy for addressing gaps in mental health services is building capacity at the primary healthcare and system levels.ObjectiveUsing the framework of best practice literature, this article analyses the four-year collaborative process between the National Autonomous University of Nicaragua in León (UNAN-León) and the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Canada, which is aimed at improving mental healthcare in Nicaragua.DesignBased on a critical analysis of evaluation reports, key documents, and discussion among partners, the central steps of the collaboration are analysed and main successes and challenges identified.ResultsA participatory needs assessment identified local strengths and weaknesses, expected outcomes regarding competencies, and possible methodologies and recommendations for the development of a comprehensive capacity-building programme. The partners delivered two international workshops on mental health and addiction with an emphasis on primary healthcare. More recently, an innovative Diploma and Master programme was launched to foster interprofessional leadership and effective action to address mental health and addiction needs. Collaborative activities have taken place in Nicaragua and Canada.DiscussionTo date, international collaboration between Nicaragua and CAMH has been successful in achieving the jointly defined goals. The process has led to mutual knowledge sharing, strong networking, and extensive educational opportunities. Evidence of effective and respectful global health capacity building is provided. Lessons learned and implications for global health action are identified and discussed.

show abstract

“…CBOs’ attitudes toward collaboration can also affect partnership outcomes and depend greatly on historical experiences with research. Mistrust of research intentions, difficulty in scheduling meetings, and researcher's lack of CBPR knowledge and experience has led some CBOs to form negative attitudes toward research (Tendulkar et al, 2011; MacPhee, 2009; Pivik and Goelman, 2011; Dobransky-Fasiska et al, 2009). An infrastructure which supports the partnership through technical assistance and training for both partners can be helpful in creating equality and positive attitudes toward collaboration (Braun, Tsark, Santos, Aitaoto & Chong, 2006).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Model for Strengthening Collaborative Research Capacity

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction. Community-engaged research is effective in addressing health disparities but may present challenges for both academic institutions and community partners. Therefore, the need to build capacity for conducting collaborative research exists. The purpose of this study is to present a model for building research capacity in academic–community partnerships. Method. The Building Collaborative Research Capacity Model was developed as part of the Community Engagement Research Program (CERP) of the Atlanta Clinical and Translational Science Institute (ACTSI). Six domains of collaborative research capacity were identified and used to develop a model. Inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes of building collaborative research capacity are described. Results. To test this model, a competitive request for applications was widely distributed and four community-based organizations were funded to participate in a 2-year program with the aim of conducting a pilot study and submitting a research proposal for funding to National Institutes of Health or another major funding agency. During the first year, the community-based organization partners were trained on conducting collaborative research and matched with an academic partner from an ACTSI institution. Three of the academic–community partnerships submitted pilot study results and two submitted a grant proposal to a national agency. Discussion. The Building Collaborative Research Capacity Model is an innovative approach to strengthening academic–community partnerships. This model will help build needed research capacity, serve as a framework for academicians and community partners, and lead to sustainable partnerships that improve community health.

show abstract

Developing a practice-academic partnership logic model

Cited by 41 publications

References 15 publications

An Evaluation of a Train-the-Trainer Workshop for Social Service Workers to Develop Community-Based Family Interventions

An Evaluation of a Train-the-Trainer Workshop for Social Service Workers to Develop Community-Based Family Interventions

Global mental health: transformative capacity building in Nicaragua

A Model for Strengthening Collaborative Research Capacity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About