Purpose Formulation, Coalition Building, and Evidence Use in Public–Academic Partnerships: Web-Based Survey Study

Abstract

Background Partnerships between academic institutions and public care agencies (public–academic partnerships [PAPs]) can promote effective policy making and care delivery. Public care agencies are often engaged in PAPs for evidence-informed policy making in health care. Previous research has reported essential partnership contextual factors and mechanisms that promote evidence-based policy making and practice in health care. However, the studies have not yet informed whether public care agency leaders’ and academic researchers’ perceptions of partnership purpose formulation and coalition building evolve through the PAP life cycle and whether public care agency leaders’ use of research evidence differs through life cycle stages. Objective This exploratory study aims to focus on PAPs designed to improve youth mental health and well-being outcomes. This study also aims to identify public care agency leaders’ and academic researchers’ perceptions of PAP purpose formulation (structure, goals, primary function, and agenda-setting process) and coalition building (mutual benefits, trust, convener’s role, member role clarity, and conflict management) by PAP life cycle stage and examine whether public care agency leaders’ use of research evidence differs according to the perception of PAP purpose formulation and coalition building through the PAP life cycle. Methods A web-based survey of PAP experience was conducted by recruiting academic researchers (n=40) and public care agency leaders (n=26) who were engaged in PAPs for the past 10 years. Public care agency leaders additionally participated in the survey of the Structured Interview for Evidence Use scale (n=48). Results Most public care agency leaders and academic researchers in PAPs formed, matured, and sustained perceived their PAP as having purpose formulation context well aligned with their organizational purpose formulation context, pursuing mutual benefits, having leadership representation and role clarity, having a higher level of trust, and knowing how to handle conflicts. Most PAPs across all life cycle stages crystallized another issue to focus, but not all PAPs with issue crystallization had purpose reformulation. Public care agency leaders who trusted academic researchers in their PAP had greater use of research evidence. Public care agency leaders in PAPs that had gone through new issue crystallization also showed greater use of research evidence compared with those that had not. Conclusions To promote public care agency leaders’ use of research evidence, focusing on developing trusting partnerships and continuously crystallizing PAP issues are important. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/14382

A Case Study of Community—Academic Partnership in Improving the Quality of Life for Asthmatic Urban Minority Children in Low-Income Households

“…Coalition building plays a critical role in successful CAPs and in promoting the use of evidence by policymakers and practitioners. The key dimensions of coalition building include pursuing mutual benefits, building trust, clarifying the roles, and managing conflict [ 27 ]. Successful CAPs are found to pursue mutual benefits, such as a specific agreement that ensures strategic advantages for both parties, smoother facilitation of contracts, financial incentives for the university, actionable research, innovative ideas, improvement in the quality of services, and facilitation of knowledge translation to direct practice [ 28 ].…”

Supporting psychosis research, implementation, and training through an academic intermediary–purveyor organization.

“…While we describe above that there is a benefit to these entities being locally or regionally based, some may not be able to apply all seven functions of an IPO, especially research and evaluation, if based in a nonacademic entity. In the absence of implementation science research that concludes how best to support these decisions, we recommend that IPOs and those charged with providing implementation support apply those functions that best support their individual mission or vantage point within the service system while identifying partners who can help to expand that mission through collaboration such as those embodied within public–academic partnerships (Kang-Yi & Page, 2022). For example, if their focus is primarily on EST purveyance and/or training and technical assistance, we recommend adding quality improvement and/or fidelity monitoring to provide a feedback loop for developing a training and technical assistance blueprint.…”