Strengthening the evidence and action on multi-sectoral partnerships in public health: an action research initiative

Willis, Claire; Greene, Julie K.; Abramowicz, Aneta; Riley, Barbara

doi:10.24095/hpcdp.36.6.01

Cited by 36 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Measuring the outcome in collaboratives has been done using various approaches. Innes and Booher [55] propose that outcome should be assessed using first, second and third order effects; while Willis et al [18] suggest measuring immediate, intermediate and long-term effects. While these authors use different terms, they both describe the timing when collaboration can be evaluated, and what should be realistically expected at that point.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While these authors use different terms, they both describe the timing when collaboration can be evaluated, and what should be realistically expected at that point. The first order or immediate effects refers to direct results of the collaboration, second order or intermediate effects refer to evaluation conducted when the collaboration is well underway, and third order focusing on long-term effects [18,48]. Similarly, Parkhurst and Preskill [56] describes three approaches to evaluate collective impact which are: developmental evaluation at the beginning, formative evaluation during the process as the collaborative evolves, and summative evaluation to assess the outcome at the end of the process.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Notwithstanding it's benefits, multisectoral collaboration is complicated and challenging to implement [14][15][16]. Multisectoral collaboration brings together people with different background, strategies and tactics; and members come with or represent competing institutional logics (rules and standard operating procedures) based on their institutional background [5,17,18]. These collaborations can be costly in time and resources, and are inherently fragile, requiring constant management, coordination, proper planning, reciprocal obligations and trust between sectors [19,20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Multisector collaboration remains a complex phenomenon. Whilst the case for multisectoral collaboration has been widely established, there has been limited clarity about the process of collaboration [6,18]. Focus has been mainly on describing key requirements that determine success and on the outcome of multisector collaboration; with limited explanation of the process and its execution in practiceparticularlywhen multiple sectors are involved at multiple levels of government.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Towards a framework for multisector and multilevel collaboration: case of HIV and AIDS governance in South Africa

Mahlangu

Goudge

Vearey

2019

Global Health Action

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: While multisectoral action (MSA) is advocated as one of the strategies to address complex health and development challenges, there is limited clarity about the process of multisector collaboration in practice. Objectives: Informed by the findings of the research on implementation of the multisectoral response to HIV in South Africa, and drawing from the existing literature; we propose a framework for multisector and multilevel collaboration. The framework describes key components of the process of multisector collaboration, and aims to inform policy and practice. Methods: An integrative review and synthesis of existing frameworks, models and approaches on multisectoral action in public health, governance and health, and in public administration was conducted to inform the development of the proposed framework. Results: There are seven key components that are critical in the process of multisector collaboration namely: preconditions; key drivers; structure; mechanisms; administration; execution and evaluation. Multisector collaboration is presented as an iterative process that allow for improvement and learning. The framework is presented through a visual representation which shows how the seven elements are connected, and how learning happens throughout the multisector collaboration process. Structure and mechanisms are the two central and interrelated elements of the proposed framework. Conclusion: The framework does not suggest that multisector collaboration is a panacea, but that MSA remains critical to address complex health and development issues. Focus should be on finding innovative ways to inform and strengthen its implementation in practice. The framework can be used by practitioners and policy makers to inform design, implementation, and evaluation of multisector collaborations. It reflects on complexities of MSA, and brings to the fore critical information to assess readiness and to inform the decision whether to engage in MSA or not.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Towards a framework for multisector and multilevel collaboration: case of HIV and AIDS governance in South Africa

Mahlangu

Goudge

Vearey

2019

Global Health Action

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…19 While multisectoral collaboration to address health issues and catalyze policy development is increasingly understood, what makes a multisectoral partnership successful is less well defined. 20 To this end, it was important to understand the lessons learned -or "pathways to policy" -underlying the success of CMHH and HCBD's multisectoral efforts in developing and revising 163 policies to create supportive built environments for health and opportunities for physical activity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pathways to policy: Lessons learned in multisectoral collaboration for physical activity and built environment policy development from the Coalitions Linking Action and Science for Prevention (CLASP) initiative

Politis

Mowat

Keen

2017

Can J Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVES:The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer funded 12 large-scale knowledge to action cancer and chronic disease prevention projects between 2009 and 2016 through the Coalitions Linking Action and Science for Prevention (CLASP) initiative. Two projects, Healthy Canada by Design (HCBD) and Children's Mobility, Health and Happiness (CMHH), developed policies to address physical activity and the built environment through a multisectoral approach. A qualitative analysis involving a review of 183 knowledge products and 8 key informant interviews was conducted to understand what policy changes occurred, and the underlying critical success factors, through these projects. SETTING:Both projects worked at the local level to change physical activity and built environment policy in 203 sites, including municipalities and schools. Both projects brought multisectoral expertise (e.g., public health, land use planning, transportation engineering, education, etc.) together to inform the development of local healthy public policy in the areas of land use, transportation and school travel planning. INTERVENTION:Through the qualitative analysis of the knowledge products and key informant interviews, 163 policies were attributed to HCBD and CMHH work. OUTCOMES:Fourteen "pathways to policy" were identified as critical success factors facilitating and accelerating the development and implementation of physical activity and built environment policy. Of the 14 pathways to policy, 8 had a focus on multisectoral collaboration. IMPLICATIONS:The lessons learned from the CLASP experience could support enhanced multisectoral collaborations to accelerate the development and implementation of physical activity and built environment policy in new jurisdictions across Canada and internationally.KEY WORDS: Public health; policy; physical activity; environment design; city planning; collaboration La traduction du résumé se trouve à la fin de l'article.

show abstract

Local government stakeholders' perceptions of potential policy actions to influence both climate change and healthy eating in Victoria: A qualitative study

Thanekar,

Sacks,

Ruffini

et al. 2024

Health Prom J of Aust

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Issue AddressedClimate change is a defining public health issue of the 21st century. Food systems are drivers of diet‐related disease burden, and account for 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Local governments play a crucial role in improving both the healthiness and environmental sustainability of food systems, but the potential for their actions to simultaneously address these two issues is unclear. This study aimed to explore the perceptions of Australian local government stakeholders regarding policy actions simultaneously addressing healthy eating and climate change, and the influences on policy adoption.MethodsWe conducted 11 in‐depth semi‐structured interviews with stakeholders from four local governments in Victoria, Australia. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. We applied Multiple Streams Theory (MST) ‘problem’, ‘politics and ‘policy’ domains to explain policy adoption influences at the local government level.ResultsKey influences on local government action aligned with MST elements of ‘problem’ (e.g., local government's existing risk reports as drivers for climate change action), ‘policy’ (e.g., budgetary constraints) and ‘politics’ (e.g., local government executive agenda). We found limited evidence of coherent policy action in the areas of community gardens, food procurement and urban land use.ConclusionBarriers to further action, such as resource constraints and competing priorities, could be overcome by better tailoring policy action areas to community needs, with the help of external partnerships and local government executive support.So What?This study demonstrates that Victorian local stakeholders believe they are well‐positioned to implement feasible and coherent interventions that address both healthy eating and climate.

show abstract

Strengthening the evidence and action on multi-sectoral partnerships in public health: an action research initiative

Cited by 36 publications

References 33 publications

Towards a framework for multisector and multilevel collaboration: case of HIV and AIDS governance in South Africa

Towards a framework for multisector and multilevel collaboration: case of HIV and AIDS governance in South Africa

Pathways to policy: Lessons learned in multisectoral collaboration for physical activity and built environment policy development from the Coalitions Linking Action and Science for Prevention (CLASP) initiative

Local government stakeholders' perceptions of potential policy actions to influence both climate change and healthy eating in Victoria: A qualitative study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About