Multisector Health Policy Networks in 15 Large US Cities

Harris, Jenine K.; Leider, Jonathon P.; Carothers, Bobbi J.; Castrucci, Brian C.; Hearne, Shelley

doi:10.1097/phh.0000000000000401

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A recent review on information sharing in a health care provider setting also showed transitivity to be an important factor (Bae et al, 2015). Additionally, the impact of transitive collaborations were also reported in multisector health policy networks (Harris et al, 2016) and sport tourism cooperation (W€ asche, 2015). In a study on governmental collaborations, researchers suggested transitivity could be a sign of asymmetrical collaborations between more active members and relatively less active members which may also be the case in this network (Ulibarri and Scott, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Health coalition collaboration network, perceived satisfaction and success

Prochnow

Patterson

Sharkey

et al. 2020

JHOM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe health equity and prosperity of communities is closely linked to the effectiveness and success of local health coalitions. Social network analysis (SNA) is one mechanism to quantify and understand the factors leading to collaboration and effectiveness within these coalitions. This study aims to investigate network characteristics associated with perceived success and satisfaction in a health coalition and determine significant factors related to organizational collaborations.Design/methodology/approachThis study examined the Olympic Peninsula Healthy Community Coalition (OPHCC) which aims to prevent chronic disease in rural Clallam County, Washington. Representatives (n = 21) from member organizations (n = 18) were asked to report on organization characteristics, perceived satisfaction in coalition activities, perceived success toward coalition's mission, and collaborations with other organizations in the coalition. Multilevel modeling used to analyze whether an organization's position within the coalition network was associated with their perceived satisfaction and perceived success. Exponential random graph modeling was used to examine what factors may impact collaboration ties between coalition members.FindingsOrganization representatives reported a total of 252 collaboration ties. In multilevel models, organization characteristics and network centrality scores accounted for between 61 and 68% of variance displayed in satisfaction scores and 45–61% of variance in perceived success scores. Exponential random graph modeling revealed activity level, for-profit status, and transitivity as significant factors in collaborative tie presence.Originality/valueEncouraging consistent active participation, a balance of organizational type, and projects which require more than two collaborators may provide an environment for collaborative ties between organizations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Health coalition collaboration network, perceived satisfaction and success

Prochnow

Patterson

Sharkey

et al. 2020

JHOM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Examples of this are illustrated in the development and implementation of Community Health Improvement Plans, chronic disease management, environmental health issues, and many other public health issues. LHDs need to be able to create change in systems and communities through collaborations that regularly engage partners at different levels and across different sectors [17,18]. This would allow all to become more aware of factors that influence community health and well-being and the interconnected nature of public health.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Most Important Skills Required by Local Public Health Departments for Responding to Community Needs and Improving Health Outcomes

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2017, Public Health 3.0 was introduced, providing recommendations that expand traditional public department functions and programs. Operationalizing the framework requires that local health departments invest in the requisite professional skills to respond to their community's needs. The purpose of this paper is to determine the professional skills that are most important for local health departments to respond to large public health issues and challenges that are having a major impact on their communities. The study used a cross-sectional assessment of the education and training needs of local public health departments in Nebraska following the principles of practice-based systems research. The assessment was designed to assess the training and education needs of local health department staff members. The questions measured the perceived importance of and respondent's capacity across 57 core competencies for public health professionals modified from the Council on Linkages Between Academia and Public Health Practice. A total of 104 staff members from seven local health departments were requested to complete the assessment and 100% of the individuals responded to and completed the assessment. Twenty-eight skills were identified as the most important skills needed for local health departments. The skills were themed and categorized into four domains. (1) Data, Evaluation, and Quality Improvement, (2) Community Engagement and Facilitation, (3) Systems Thinking and Leadership, and (4) Policy and Advocacy. The results from this analysis provide direction to strengthen and transform the public health system into one that is connected, responsive, and nimble. Additionally, it also highlighted a glaring omission that Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion should be included as the fifth domain.

show abstract

“…Additional details on data collection are available elsewhere. 41 The Washington University in St Louis Institutional Review Board approved this study.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From these sources, we compiled a full list of policy partners for each of the 15 jurisdictions. Descriptive statistics quantifying network size (ie, number of network members including the LHD and its policy partners), density, degree centralization (ie, the extent to which a network includes a single member or a small number of members with more ties than the others), and composition (ie, how many types of partners are in each network) of the networks in all 5 areas are compared elsewhere 41 ; this study focused on the composition and structure of the IVP networks.…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%