Working Together across Primary Care, Mental Health & Addictions: Exploring the Association between the Formalization of Organizational Partnerships & Collaboration among Staff Members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between the formalization of inter-organizational partnerships and collaboration among staff members working together across primary care, mental health and addition organizations to provide services to adults with complex mental health and addiction needs. Phase I of the study provided an environmental scan of existing partnerships among Family Health Teams (FHTs) and Community Health Centres (CHCs), and the Mental Health and/or Addiction (MHA) organizations they partner with, in the province of Ontario (Canada). Phase II explored the relationship between formalization and a) administrative collaboration and b) and service delivery collaboration. The hypotheses proposed that staff members who are part of formalized partnerships would report higher levels of collaboration. Phase III explored how formal and informal partnerships and collaboration are experienced by the administrative and service provider staff members who work across FHTs, CHCs and MHAs organizations. Using a mixed methods approach, data were collected using electronic surveys and telephone interviews. The results of Phase I indicated that FHTs and CHCs in Ontario have between 1-3 partnerships with MHA organizations. Most are informal partnerships, have existed for less than 5 years, and most staff members (partners) interact on a monthly basis. The quantitative results of Phase II showed no significant relationship between formalization and either form of collaboration. The qualitative findings from Phase III provide two key contributions. First, the results of the interviews may help explain why collaboration was not higher in formalized partnerships, as demonstrated by the range of advantages and disadvantages experienced by administrators and service providers in both formal and informal partnerships. Second, the findings illuminate factors related to the process of creating and/or formalizing partnerships, suggesting that there may be other factors that mediate or have a direct impact on the relationship between formalization and collaboration. By bringing together the study findings, the study addresses a gap in the literature by proposing a pathway through which formalization may be associated with collaboration. The results of the study provide opportunities for future research to help improve the quality and accessibility of services to adults with complex mental health and addiction needs.
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 | 0.015 | 0.042 |
| 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 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".