An intersectoral network for chronic disease prevention: the case of the Alberta Healthy Living Network

Abstract

Chronic Diseases (CDs) are the leading causes of death and disability worldwide. CD experts have long promoted the use of integrated and intersectoral approaches to strengthen CD prevention efforts. This qualitative case study examined the perceived benefits and challenges associated with implementing an intersectoral network dedicated to CD prevention. Through interviewing key members of the Alberta Healthy Living Network (AHLN, or the Network), two overarching themes emerged from the data. The first relates to contrasting views on the role of the AHLN in relation to its actions and outcomes, especially concerning policy advocacy. The second focuses on the benefits and contributions of the AHLN and the challenge of demonstrating non-quantifiable outcomes. While the respondents agreed that the AHLN has contributed to intersectoral work in CD prevention in Alberta and to collaboration among Network members, several did not view this achievement as an end in itself and appealed to the Network to engage more in change-oriented activities. Managing contrasting expectations has had a significant impact on the functioning of the Network.

Perceived Benefits and Challenges of Coordinated Approaches to Chronic Disease Prevention in State Health Departments

“…Similar to our findings, overcoming lack of communication across programs is a commonly cited challenge and key element in coordination efforts in the United States, Canada, and Australia ( 11 , 21 , 22 ). Staff from Canada and Australia indicated the need and usefulness of in-service trainings on how to communicate across disciplines and across disease-specific coalitions ( 21 , 22 ). Wisconsin also used program evaluation data to guide communication improvements to increase program efficiency ( 15 ).…”

“…Although literature to date is sparse, preliminary reports and success stories align with the anticipated benefits found in this sample. Several researchers found reduced duplication of efforts following coordination initiatives ( 8 , 15 , 21 , 22 ). For example, 91% of surveyed staff in Wisconsin’s Bureau of Community Health Promotion reported reduced duplication among coordinated programs in 2012 ( 15 ).…”

“…Frameworks of coordination across programs have facilitated the efficient use of resources and population reach in the United States, Canada, and Australia ( 8 , 11 , 21 , 25 , 26 ). Wisconsin staff members found that using a framework for coordination and a combined risk factor report was useful for thinking collaboratively and developing common messages across programs ( 15 ).…”

“…Wisconsin staff members found that using a framework for coordination and a combined risk factor report was useful for thinking collaboratively and developing common messages across programs ( 15 ). In Alberta, Canada, collaborators developed a framework and common messages and posted them online to create a united purpose and further coordination ( 21 ). In the United States, Canada, and Australia, frameworks incorporate a socioecologic perspective with across-sector action and multilevel interventions.…”