Which comes first: the partnership or the tool? Reflections on the effective use of partnership tools in local health partnerships

Abstract

This paper focuses on the use of a partnership self-evaluation tool in local health partnerships in Australia. Partnership tools are intended to be used across all phases of partnership development and are typically delivered in the form of a self-administered survey. Survey questions are designed to encourage members of local partnerships to reflect on their progress to date and, if necessary, to reorient future activities to satisfy objectives and desired outcomes. In this paper we argue that without a broader surrounding framework of partnership development and appropriate assistance in administering partnership tools, the potential benefits of self evaluation in local partnerships may be restricted. We base these comments on a study of the use of a partnership self-evaluation tool as part of a broader chronic disease initiative in 17 communities across regional Australia during 2008. Although participants reported favourable outcomes from being involved in the local partnerships, and some found the tool to be of benefit, only 8 of the 17 partnerships actually used the self-evaluation tool. The reported reasons for non-use related primarily to: (1) lack of time; (2) perceptions that it was too early to ‘evaluate’ the partnership; and (3) difficulty in administering the tool. These barriers to use indicate that participants may have been unaware of the potential of the tool to assist in partnership development over time. Partnership participants may require more preparation to use partnership tools in a way that can secure high quality sustainable local health partnerships.

Development of a tool for the evaluation of obesity prevention partnerships

“…This study has highlighted challenges in the measurement of partnerships, including those of identifying the appropriate sample of stakeholders to complete the survey tool and methods to maximise their response rate. In this study, the 43% and 49% response rates achieved at Timepoint 1 and Timepoint 2, respectively, are consistent with a 47% response rate for an evaluation of a chronic disease prevention initiative across 17 communities in regional Australia using an adapted version of the VicHealth Partnership Analysis Tool . Strategies to improve response rates are needed to ensure a consistent and comprehensive picture of partnership functioning over time.…”

“…In this study, the 43% and 49% response rates achieved at Timepoint 1 and Timepoint 2, respectively, are consistent with a 47% response rate for an evaluation of a chronic disease prevention initiative across 17 communities in regional Australia using an adapted version of the VicHealth Partnership Analysis Tool. 34 Strategies to improve response rates are needed to ensure a consistent and comprehensive picture of partnership functioning over time.…”

An exploration of inter-organisational partnership assessment tools in the context of Australian Aboriginal-mainstream partnerships: a scoping review of the literature

“…Two partnership assessment tool summaries [ 38 , 59 ]; three reviews of partnership assessment tools [ 61 - 63 ] and four papers documenting experiences of implementing partnership analysis tools [ 57 , 60 , 64 , 84 ] were downloaded to identify tools relevant to consider for AMP assessment. One comparative analysis of four selected partnership analysis tools was excluded due to a substantial gap in methodology documented [ 63 ].…”

“… Other notes: Reporting positive experience of applying an adapted partnership tool. Sunderland N, Domalewski D, Kendall E & Armstrong K [ 84 ] 2009 Focuses on partnership manager’s observation on the use of a partnership self-evaluation tool in local health partnerships in Australia. A mix of open-ended questions and 7-point rating scales to gather data on partnership manager’s experience in using an adapted partnership tool.…”

“… • Provide easily accessible, simple and cost-effective means to measure the basic characteristics of a partnership’s work and the collaborative progress during the lifetime of the partnership [ 62 ] • Generally inadequately capture the complex, dynamic and context specific nature of partnership working. Halliday et al believe that formal tools are open to misinterpretation if used as a ‘stand-alone device’ [ 60 ] • Data obtained can provide a developmental framework for establishing an effective partnership and can be used in all transitional stages of partnership development, including formation [ 84 ] • Overreliance on standardized guidelines and analysis tools may not only deny the complexity and idiosyncrasy of collaborative situations, but risk surfacing the tension and exploring the pluses and minuses of alternative ways of addressing issues [ 85 ] • Partnership tools can help build knowledge and capacity in local communities that endures beyond the periods of funded program implementation, thereby enhancing the benefits gained from local community partnerships [ 84 ] • Application of partnership tools can be time consuming • A structured tool can help to discriminate between performance of different partnerships and also between different aspects of partnership working [ 57 ]. • The need to demonstrate ‘value for money’ and tangible outcomes for partnerships funded by short term government initiatives can result in the use of an ‘auditing tool’ to show success rather than supporting ongoing development through the exposure and discussion of partnership strengths and weaknesses [ 84 ] …”