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

Christina D Kang-Yi; Amy Page

doi:10.2196/29288

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

JMIR Hum Factors. 2022 Jan 5;9(1):e29288. doi: 10.2196/29288.

Authors

Christina D Kang-Yi^#^{1

2}, Amy Page^#³

Affiliations

¹ Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
² Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
³ Graduate School of Social Service, Fordham University, New York City, NY, United States.

^# Contributed equally.

PMID: 34989678
PMCID: PMC8771345
DOI: 10.2196/29288

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.

Keywords: partnership coalition building; partnership purpose formulation; public care policy; public–academic partnership; use of research evidence; youth mental health and well-being.