Towards a simple typology of international health partnerships

Abstract

BackgroundInternational health partnerships are one approach to capacity building in health systems. The evidence base for institutional partnerships for health service development remains weak and evaluation of the process and outcomes of health partnerships is a priority. The variability of partnerships contributes to the challenge of understanding their effectiveness and a typology of partnerships could aid evaluation. We analysed the proposals for all of the partnerships that received funding from the Tropical Health and Education Trust in 2012–2013 to develop such a typology.MethodsOur data consisted of 54 successful project proposals for health partnerships funded by THET in 2012–2013. A coding strategy was developed and modified through five rounds of coding, discussion, modification of the coding strategy and re-coding. The final coding strategy classified partnerships according to impact, approach and relationships between partners.ResultsAll 54 (100 %) of the partnerships in our sample planned to deliver training and 30 (56 %) aimed to deliver infrastructure strengthening in addition to training. 24 (44 %) aimed to build generic skills and 30 (56 %) specialist skills. 33(61 %) of the partners based in low and middle income countries had a scope of influence at national or international level and 33 (61 %) partnerships were between partners with an equal scope of influence. We suggest that those partnerships that focus on infrastructure strengthening and the development of generic skills might have more sustainable impacts in situations of high health care worker mobility and 12/54 partnerships met these criteria.ConclusionWe classified partnerships by their impact (scope of influence of LMIC partner and focus on individual/organisational development); approach to health systems strengthening (training/infrastructure; generic/specialist) and relationships (relative scope of influence between partners; mode of delivery – with an NGO partner or not). This is a first step in generating questions about partnership effectiveness that may be answered through evaluation.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12992-015-0132-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Envisioning a Global Health Partnership Movement

“…Suzanne Edwards et al in seeking to develop a simple typology of international health partnerships, present initial analysis of 54 successful project proposals for health partnerships funded by HPS in 2012-2013. The variability of partnerships contributes to the challenge of understanding their effectiveness and a typology of partnerships could aid evaluation [3].…”

Managing health research capacity strengthening consortia: a systematised review of the published literature

“…Across the available evidence base, terms used for collaborations such as partnership, network and consortium are used inconsistently and interchangeably, a point also noted by others 59 89. Similarly, the concept of ‘(health) research capacity strengthening’ has been inconsistently applied across the broader HRCS literature 34.…”

“…Although not discussed in the literature, the lack of standard definitions and delineation of terminologies could lead to challenges with multiple perceptions of the nature and practices of a collaboration, as well as different partner expectations. Concerns about clarity in the use of terms contributed to efforts by Edwards et al 89 to develop a typology of international health partnerships to facilitate evaluations by positing a classification according to the level of impact (individual or organisational), capacity strengthening approach and the type of relationship between partners. Beyond ensuring the use of appropriate comparators in evaluation,89 characterising collaborations and being explicit about the attributes of the collaboration and degree of involvement, for instance, should promote consonance in partner thinking, approaches and expectations.…”

Lessons learnt from the MAGNET Malawian-German Hospital Partnership: the German perspective on contributions to patient care and capacity development

“…We believe the focus of the MAGNET partnership was on the organisation rather than individuals [1], although individuals did benefit. The strategy on capacity strengthening was set on education and training, rather than specialist building.…”