Building trust through collaboration: a mixed-methods evaluation of San Francisco’s Pregnancy Village model of cross-sector care delivery

Historical injustices, systemic racism, unequal healthcare access, and provider bias have fostered mistrust in healthcare institutions. Cross-sector collaborations between healthcare institutions and community-based organizations (CBOs), such as San Francisco’s Pregnancy Village (PV) model, could potentially build institutional trust within minoritized communities. This study primarily aimed to examine trust in PV, with secondary aims exploring participant perceptions of trust in the health system and CBOs, including their views on the health system’s involvement in PV. Between July 2021 and June 2022, we conducted a convergent, mixed-methods study involving 116 survey participants (57 pregnant/postpartum individuals and 59 family members) and 18 semi-structured interviews (13 pregnant/postpartum people and five family members). Trust was assessed quantitatively using a seven-item scale (scores standardized to 0-100) adapted from the Public Healthcare System Trust Scale and qualitatively with open-ended questions. We performed univariate, bivariate, and multivariate analyses of the quantitative data and thematic analyses of the qualitative data. The mean trust in PV score was 85.9/100 (SD = 18.9), with lower trust among Latine participants (β = -12.2, 95% CI: -21.6, -2.9), those with prior preterm birth (β = -11.0, 95% CI: -20.5, -1.4), and those experiencing food insecurity (β = -12.4, 95% CI: -21.0, -3.8). Qualitative findings revealed that trust in both the health system and CBOs was shaped by receipt of person-centered care. Trust in CBOs was attributed to their focus on holistic care, relatability, and responsiveness to community needs. Distrust in the health system was shaped by experiences of racism and neglect. Participants held mixed views on the health system’s role in PV; some highlighted its ability to meet community needs, while others voiced skepticism due to ongoing structural racism and inequities in care. Participants perceived PV as trustworthy, with mixed views of the health system, generally positive perceptions of CBOs, and overall support for the health system’s involvement in PV despite lingering concerns regarding structural racism. These findings underscore PV’s unique role in bridging sectors and highlight that sustained, community-guided collaboration is essential to building trust and advancing more equitable cross-sector care.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Archives of Public Health
Published
2025-12-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-025-01808-9
Primary Topic
Global Maternal and Child Health
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Building trust through collaboration: a mixed-methods evaluation of San Francisco’s Pregnancy Village model of cross-sector care delivery

Patience A. Afulani, Osamuedeme J. Odiase, Malini A. Nijagal, Alison M. El Ayadi et al.
Archives of Public Health
Global Maternal and Child Health
article

Building trust through collaboration: a mixed-methods evaluation of San Francisco’s Pregnancy Village model of cross-sector care delivery

Patience A. Afulani, Osamuedeme J. Odiase, Malini A. Nijagal, Alison M. El Ayadi, Catherine Ravikumar, KaSelah Crockett, April J. Bell, Kattia Suarez Vargas
article en

Abstract

Historical injustices, systemic racism, unequal healthcare access, and provider bias have fostered mistrust in healthcare institutions. Cross-sector collaborations between healthcare institutions and community-based organizations (CBOs), such as San Francisco’s Pregnancy Village (PV) model, could potentially build institutional trust within minoritized communities. This study primarily aimed to examine trust in PV, with secondary aims exploring participant perceptions of trust in the health system and CBOs, including their views on the health system’s involvement in PV. Between July 2021 and June 2022, we conducted a convergent, mixed-methods study involving 116 survey participants (57 pregnant/postpartum individuals and 59 family members) and 18 semi-structured interviews (13 pregnant/postpartum people and five family members). Trust was assessed quantitatively using a seven-item scale (scores standardized to 0-100) adapted from the Public Healthcare System Trust Scale and qualitatively with open-ended questions. We performed univariate, bivariate, and multivariate analyses of the quantitative data and thematic analyses of the qualitative data. The mean trust in PV score was 85.9/100 (SD = 18.9), with lower trust among Latine participants (β = -12.2, 95% CI: -21.6, -2.9), those with prior preterm birth (β = -11.0, 95% CI: -20.5, -1.4), and those experiencing food insecurity (β = -12.4, 95% CI: -21.0, -3.8). Qualitative findings revealed that trust in both the health system and CBOs was shaped by receipt of person-centered care. Trust in CBOs was attributed to their focus on holistic care, relatability, and responsiveness to community needs. Distrust in the health system was shaped by experiences of racism and neglect. Participants held mixed views on the health system’s role in PV; some highlighted its ability to meet community needs, while others voiced skepticism due to ongoing structural racism and inequities in care. Participants perceived PV as trustworthy, with mixed views of the health system, generally positive perceptions of CBOs, and overall support for the health system’s involvement in PV despite lingering concerns regarding structural racism. These findings underscore PV’s unique role in bridging sectors and highlight that sustained, community-guided collaboration is essential to building trust and advancing more equitable cross-sector care.

Archives of Public HealthVol. 84(1)
University of California, San Francisco (US), Compass (United States) (US), Children’s Village (US), Institute on Aging (US), Neurological Surgery (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 49%
Global Maternal and Child Health
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.