A Review of Collaborative Partnerships as a Strategy for Improving Community Health

Roussos, Stergios; Fawcett, Stephen B.

doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.21.1.369

Cited by 916 publications

(873 citation statements)

References 112 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

833

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Frequent use of this framework could help standardize measurement strategies in multisector collaboration research. Many partnership features identified in the literature on collaboration were supported in this study (2–4). Leadership, relationship building, prior collaborative ties, assessments to drive planning and action, common goals and vision, skilled facilitation, and sufficient resources were key drivers and supports for partnership activity.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

“…Because determinants of health often lie outside the formal jurisdiction of public health agencies, improving population health and community well-being may depend on securing authority, resources, and commitment from leaders in many county sectors. Cross-sector collaboration is increasingly viewed as necessary to improving community health (2). Multisector partnerships to improve population health typically involve collaboration among the government, nonprofit, and business sectors of a geographic area and often include leaders, staff members, and resources from the fields of education, economic development, housing, transportation, agriculture, health care, public safety, community services, and public health organizations (3).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research has identified partnership qualities and contextual conditions that support effective multisector collaboration, including having sufficient resources, a common vision, strong leadership, clear structures and processes, a broad array of partners, prior ties, and relationships marked by mutual trust, respect, and commitment to the cause (2–4). However, evidence of the effectiveness of multisector partnerships in improving population health outcomes is limited (3).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Mobilizing Action Toward Community Health Partnership Study: Multisector Partnerships in US Counties with Improving Health Metrics

Zahner¹,

Oliver²,

Siemering³

2014

Prev. Chronic Dis.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionMultisector partnerships are promoted as a mechanism to improve population health. This study explored the types and salient features of multisector partnerships in US counties with improving population health metrics.MethodsWe used the “Framework for Understanding Cross-Sector Collaborations” proposed by Bryson, Crosby, and Stone to guide data collection and interpretation. Comparative case studies were conducted in 4 counties selected on the basis of population, geographic region, an age-adjusted mortality decline better than the US average, and stable per capita income. Data were collected through website and report reviews and through in-depth interviews with key informants (N = 59) representing multiple sectors. County reports were developed and cross-case themes related to partnership types and salient features were derived.ResultsMultisector collaboration was common in all 4 counties despite substantial variations in population, geographic size, demographic diversity, and other characteristics. Most partnerships were formed by professionals and organizations to improve delivery of health and social services to vulnerable populations or to generate policy, system, and environment changes. Multisector collaboration was valued in all cases. Outcomes attributed to partnerships included short- and long-term effects that contributed to improved population health.ConclusionThe Bryson, Crosby, and Stone model is a useful framework for conducting case study research on multisector partnerships. Outcomes attributed to the multisector partnerships have the potential to contribute to improvement in population health. Further study is needed to confirm whether multisector partnerships are necessary for improving population health within counties and to understand which partnership characteristics are critical for success.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Mobilizing Action Toward Community Health Partnership Study: Multisector Partnerships in US Counties with Improving Health Metrics

Zahner¹,

Oliver²,

Siemering³

2014

Prev. Chronic Dis.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The questionnaire for the LHD interview focused on the essential MCH services (EMCHS), interactions among community agencies/groups and community coalitions (7,(15)(16)(17)(18), the structure and organization of the LHD (19)(20)(21)(22), and the structure and organization of perinatal services in the community. Data reported here come from questions focused on two populations-pregnant women and infants.…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Neither of these evaluations included a comparison group of communities without FIMR programs. Roussos and Fawcett note that the lack of a comparison group and of an experimental design is a limitation of many studies of community-based collaborations (7).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relation of FIMR Programs and Other Perinatal Systems Initiatives with Maternal and Child Health Activities in the Community

Strobino

Baldwin

Grason

et al. 2004

Matern Child Health J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To evaluate the association of the presence of a fetal and infant mortality review (FIMR) program, other perinatal systems initiative (PSI), or both in a community with the performance of essential maternal and child health (MCH) services by local health departments (LHDs). Methods: Data were obtained from telephone interviews with professionals from LHDs across the United States. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of a LHD conducting each essential MCH service in communities with and without FIMR programs or with and without PSIs, adjusted for geographic area. Results: Of the 193 communities in the sample, 41 had only a FIMR program, 36 had only a PSI, 47 had both programs, and 69 had neither. The presence of a FIMR was related to greater performance of essential MCH services in LHDs in six areas: data assessment and analysis; client services and access; quality assurance and improvement; community partnerships and mobilization; policy development; and enhancement of capacity of the health care work force. Similar findings were noted for the same broad essential services for PSIs. The comparisons of LHDs in FIMR and non-FIMR communities, however, showed greater involvement of communities with a FIMR program in essential MCH services related to data collection and quality assurance than were found for comparisons of LHDs in communities with and without a PSI. The presence of a PSI was uniquely associated with conducting needs assessments for pregnant women and infants, participation in coalitions for infants, promoting access for uninsured women to private providers and involving local officials and agencies in health plans for both populations. When both programs were present, LHDs had a greater odds of engaging in essential MCH services related to assessment and monitoring of the health of the population, reporting on progress in meeting the health needs of pregnant women and infants, and presenting data to local political officials than when either program alone was in the community. Conclusions: Local health departments in communities with FIMR programs or PSIs appear to be more likely to conduct essential MCH services in the community. Some of these relations are unique to FIMR, particularly for data collection and quality assurance services, and some are unique to PSIs, for example those that involve interaction with other community agencies or groups. Performance of the essential MCH services also appears to be enhanced when both a FIMR program and a PSI are present in the community.KEY WORDS: fetal and infant mortality review program; perinatal system initiative; public health functions; essential maternal and child health services; local health department; evaluation.

show abstract

Evaluation of the Effect of Human Immunodeficiency Virus–Related Structural Interventions

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE With the emphasis on structural-level interventions that target social determinants of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission to curb the HIV epidemic, there is a need to develop evaluation models that can detect changes in individual factors associated with HIV-related structural changes. OBJECTIVE To describe whether structural changes developed and achieved by community coalitions are associated with an effect on individual factors associated with the risk of contracting HIV. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this serial cross-sectional survey design, data were collected from 8 cities during 4 rounds of annual surveys from March 13, 2007, through July 29, 2010. Study recruitment took place at venues where the population of focus was known to congregate, such as clubs, bars, community centers, and low-income housing. The convenience sample of at-risk youth (persons aged 12–24 years) included 5337 individuals approached about the survey and 3142 (58.9%) who were screened for eligibility. Of the 2607 eligible participants, 2559 (98.2%) ultimately agreed to participate. INTERVENTIONS Achievement of locally identified structural changes that targeted public and private entities (eg, federal agencies, homeless shelters, and school systems) with the goal of fostering changes in policy and practice to ultimately facilitate positive behavioral changes aimed at preventing HIV. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Number of sexual partners, partner characteristics, condom use, and history of sexually transmitted infections and HIV testing. RESULTS Exposure to structural changes was not statistically significantly associated with any of the outcome measures, although some results were in the direction of a positive structural change effect (eg, a 10-unit increase in a structural change score had an odds ratio of 0.88 [95%CI, 0.76–1.03; P = .11] for having an older sexual partner and an odds ratio of 0.91 [95% CI, 0.60–1.39; P= .39] for using a condom half the time or less with a casual partner). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This study evaluated a broad representation of at-risk individuals and assessed the effect of numerous structural changes related to various HIV risk factors. No structural changes as measured in this study were associated with a statistically significant reduction in risk behaviors. These null findings underscore the need for a long-term approach in evaluating structural interventions and the development of more nuanced methods of quantifying and comparing structural-change initiatives and determining the appropriate strategies for evaluating effect.

show abstract

A Review of Collaborative Partnerships as a Strategy for Improving Community Health

Cited by 916 publications

References 112 publications

The Mobilizing Action Toward Community Health Partnership Study: Multisector Partnerships in US Counties with Improving Health Metrics

The Mobilizing Action Toward Community Health Partnership Study: Multisector Partnerships in US Counties with Improving Health Metrics

The Relation of FIMR Programs and Other Perinatal Systems Initiatives with Maternal and Child Health Activities in the Community

Evaluation of the Effect of Human Immunodeficiency Virus–Related Structural Interventions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About