Qualitative assessment of interorganisational partnership at a perinatal and family substance abuse centre: stakeholders’ perceptions of quality and development of their collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Partnerships are required in health and social care services to meet the increasingly complex needs of vulnerable populations. It is essential to assess these partnerships to ensure partners are supported as they strive to improve their practices. This qualitative study assessed the quality and development of the partnership of an integrated service centre for pregnant women and substance-abusing parents and their young children aged 5 and under. The data were gathered over a period of three years, by means of group and individual interviews. Twenty respondents (practitioners and managers) shared their perceptions of the interagency collaboration at the beginning, the midpoint and the end of the project funding period. Their responses were examined by means of thematic analysis. Conditions facilitating or hindering implementation of the partnership included (a) partners' participation and engagement; (b) nature of the project and its functioning (aspects of governance); (c) partners' joint work with families; and (d) social and political issues. The study highlights critical elements to consider for the development and success of a partnership project. Participants reported a number of barriers to effective collaboration; the main ones, the importance of thorough planning of project implementation, as well as the challenges relating to communication and shared leadership, are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".