Consolidated Framework for Collaboration Research derived from a systematic review of theories, models, frameworks and principles for cross-sector collaboration

Calancie, Larissa; Frerichs, Leah; Davis, Melinda M.; Sullivan, Eliana; White, Ann Marie; Cilenti, Dorothy; Corbie-Smith, Giselle; Lich, Kristen Hassmiller

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0244501

Cited by 37 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 116 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is no idle threat, given the ongoing prevalence in public health programs of principles of rational‐bureaucratic organisations, where the decision‐making processes of governments are guided by technical‐professional considerations and are aligned with objectives of effectiveness and efficiency in the use of public resources 20 . There is thus a need for refined attention to distinguishing between practices of including community voices 21 and those of devolving decision‐making power to communities. Researchers and policy‐makers alike have motivation to understand how these practices differ and in what ways they result in different outcomes.…”

Section: Survey Research Methods Deliberative Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From sharing voices to making decisions: The case for centring community ownership in evaluation of health programme planning and management

Chi

Núñez

Tuepker

2022

Health Planning & Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Community participation in health programme planning has gained traction in public health in recent decades. When an idea enters the mainstream, it becomes vulnerable to overuse and dilution, and public health professionals claiming “community participation” may intentionally or unintentionally prevent more meaningful participatory action. The principle of community‐centred planning is seldom integrated into programme evaluation. We have previously argued that, to prevent ambiguity and abuse, a stronger and more explicit idea of community ownership is useful. Un‐like “participation”, “ownership” leaves little room for dilution. Method This perspective piece explores a framework to support evaluating community ownership in planning, by emphasising decision‐making power in health planning and management as a necessary element for evaluation alongside other outcomes. After defining the concept of community ownership, we identify and discuss challenges and research gaps related to implementing community ownership in health programme planning, management, and evaluation. Such issues include considering which communities have claims to programme ownership, alternative approaches to representation and participation that support ownership, gathering community values and preferences, and incorporating them into ongoing programme planning, management and evaluation. We consider methodological issues likely to arise when transitioning from gathering community voices ‐ which is valuable but incomplete work ‐ towards community decision making power in planning and evaluation. Results We use cases from recent policy and research in Chile as examples to consider through the lens of this framework. Finally, we discuss some current constraints in implementing community ownership in healthcare planning and evaluation. Conclusion We encourage exploring how to practice evaluation in ways that will further our ability to be helpful professional supporters of community self‐determination in finding their paths to health.

show abstract

Section: Survey Research Methods Deliberative Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From sharing voices to making decisions: The case for centring community ownership in evaluation of health programme planning and management

Chi

Núñez

Tuepker

2022

Health Planning & Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…( Retrum et al , 2013 ; Brewster et al , 2019 )], with specific research devoted to the health context as well [e.g. ( Corbin et al , 2018 ; Calancie et al , 2021 )]. Tools that have demonstrated potential to address public health–criminal justice collaborative barriers are identified in Table 2 , while the broader literature on potential collaborative elements of success are incorporated into the discussion that follows, providing a more robust consideration of potential solutions.…”

Section: Overcoming Partnering Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intersectoral violence prevention: the potential of public health–criminal justice partnerships

Gebo

2022

Health Promotion International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building successful intersectoral partnerships to address health is critical to reaching health promotion goals. With the confluence of the COVID-19 pandemic, the increase in violence during the pandemic and the heightened demand for racial justice resulting from police killings of people of color, particularly young, black males, intersectoral public health–criminal justice partnerships must be more thoroughly examined. Violence prevention is both a public health and criminal justice issue, with public health systems emphasizing primary prevention and criminal justice systems addressing violence prevention at secondary and tertiary levels. Public health–criminal justice collaborations can provide an opportunity to seize upon unrealized violence reduction goals across the spectrum of prevention. At the same time, issues remain that are at odds across field boundaries as exemplified through community violence prevention. While there have been successful examples of such collaborations, past public health–criminal justice partnerships also demonstrate the challenges of working together. These challenges have yet to be systematically described and rooted in the larger literature on partnerships. In this paper, collaborative challenges are enumerated and evidence-informed strategies to overcome those barriers to achieve violence reduction goals are identified as a way to ground further intersectoral partnership work between public health and criminal justice.

show abstract

“…The following principles and tactics can guide cross-sector networks in supporting communities in addressing health inequities. These principles are not linear or siloed, but overlap and reinforce each other [ 14 ▪▪ ]. The principles require equity and the participation of community members to be central in all cross-sector network work.…”

Section: Principles and Tactics For Effective Cross-sector Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving the needle on health inequities: principles and tactics for effective cross-sector population health networks

Gertel-Rosenberg

Viveiros

Koster

et al. 2021

Current Opinion in Pediatrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of review To summarize elements of cross-sector population health networks to support systems and policy change to achieve equitable access to health services and healthy development opportunities for young children and families, allowing everyone to have a fair and just opportunity to be as healthy as possible. Recent findings The principles and tactics of Equity and Inclusion, Readiness, Joint Planning, Governance, and Data can guide cross-sector networks in effectively supporting communities in addressing health inequities. These principles are not linear or siloed, but rather, they overlap and reinforce each other. The principles require equity and the participation of community members to be central in all aspects of cross-sector network work. Summary By building strong relationships among community partners, cross-sector population health networks can ensure the network is not a short-term, transactional one-time project, but rather, a sustained collaboration through enduring processes and infrastructure. Networks can gain a fuller understanding of the needs and assets of a community through engagement and leadership by community members than they could gather from data and surveys alone. This approach to serving a community by making members equal partners in the effort helps to place equity at the center of a network's focus, as does embedding equity-related decision-making tools and processes into daily operations of the network. If cross-sector networks build resilient, inclusive structures and procedures, they can utilize them to quickly pivot and adjust to emerging needs or respond to crisis.

show abstract

Consolidated Framework for Collaboration Research derived from a systematic review of theories, models, frameworks and principles for cross-sector collaboration

Cited by 37 publications

References 116 publications

From sharing voices to making decisions: The case for centring community ownership in evaluation of health programme planning and management

From sharing voices to making decisions: The case for centring community ownership in evaluation of health programme planning and management

Intersectoral violence prevention: the potential of public health–criminal justice partnerships

Moving the needle on health inequities: principles and tactics for effective cross-sector population health networks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About