Business not as usual: how multisectoral collaboration can promote transformative change for health and sustainable development

Kuruvilla, Shyama; Hinton, Rachael; Boerma, Ties; Bunney, Ryan; Casamitjana, Núria; Cortez, Rafael; Fracassi, Patrizia; Franz-Vasdeki, Jennifer; Helldén, Daniel; McManus, Joanne; Papp, Susan; Rasanathan, Kumanan; Requejo, Jennifer; Silver, Karlee; Tenhoope-Bender, Petra; Velleman, Yael; Wegner, Mary Nell; Armstrong, Corinne; Barnett, Sarah A.; Blauvelt, Carla; Buang, Saidatul Norbaya; Bury, Louise; Callahan, Emily A.; Das, Jai K; Gurnani, Vandana; Kaba, Mary White; Milman, Helia Molina; Murray, John; Renner, Ilona; Roche, Marion; Saint, Victoria; Simpson, Sarah; Subedar, Hasina; Ukhova, Daria; Velásquez, Claudia Nieves; Young, Patricia T.; Graham, Wendy

doi:10.1136/bmj.k4771

Cited by 79 publications

(95 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(49 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The recommendations that resulted from Task 5.3 are in line with the literature [29,30,32,[36][37][38]. Corbin et al [36] suggests nine core elements that constitute positive partnership processes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

Recommendations for Effective Intersectoral Collaboration in Health Promotion Interventions: Results from Joint Action CHRODIS-PLUS Work Package 5 Activities

Dale

Lemmens

Hendriksen

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The burden of chronic disease in Europe continues to grow. A major challenge facing national governments is how to tackle the risk factors of sedentary lifestyle, alcohol abuse, smoking, and unhealthy diet. These factors are complex and necessitate intersectoral collaboration to strengthen health promotion, counter-act the social determinants of health, and reduce the prevalence of chronic disease. European countries have diverse intersectoral collaboration to encourage health promotion activities. In the Joint Action CHRODIS-PLUS success factors for intersectoral collaboration within and outside healthcare which strengthen health promotion activities were identified with a mixed method design via a survey of 22 project partners in 14 countries and 2 workshops. In six semi-structured interviews, the mechanisms underlying these success factors were examined. These mechanisms can be very context-specific but do give more insight into how they can be replicated. In this paper, 20 health promotion interventions from national programs in CHRODIS PLUS are explored. This includes community interventions, policy actions, integrated approaches, capacity building, and training activities. The interventions involved collaboration across three to more than six sectors. The conclusion is a set of seven recommendations that are considered to be essential for fostering intersectoral collaboration to improve health-promoting activities.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

Recommendations for Effective Intersectoral Collaboration in Health Promotion Interventions: Results from Joint Action CHRODIS-PLUS Work Package 5 Activities

Dale

Lemmens

Hendriksen

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4b: n=18) included in the data extraction. investing in collaborative relationships; and agreeing on criteria for success (20). Similar recommendations can be found in reviews throughout the literature, many of which also draw substantially from case studies (5)(6)(7)(8)10,11,13,(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26).…”

Section: Figure 4: Distribution Of Research Methods On Msc By Topicalmentioning

confidence: 74%

Methodological gaps and opportunities for studying multisectoral collaboration for health in low- and middle-income countries

Glandon

Mondal

Okeyo

et al. 2019

Health Policy and Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current body of research into multisectoral collaborations (MSCs) for health raises more questions than it answers, both in terms of how to implement MSCs and how to study them. This article reflects on current methodological gaps and opportunities for advancing MSC research, based on a targeted review of existing literature and qualitative input from researchers and practitioners at the 2018 Health Systems Research (HSR) Symposium in Liverpool. Through framework analysis of 205 MSC research papers referenced in a separately published MSC ‘overview of reviews’ paper, this article identifies six broad MSC question domains (‘meta questions’) and applies content analysis to estimate the relative frequency with which these meta questions and the research method(s) used to answer them are present in the literature. Results highlight a preponderance of research exploring MSC implementation using case study methods, which, in aggregate, does not seem to adequately meet policymakers’ and practitioners’ needs for generalizable or transferable insights. The content analysis is complemented by qualitative insights from HSR Symposium participants and the authors’ own experience to identify six key methodological gaps in research on MSC for health. For each of these gaps, we propose areas in which we believe there are opportunities for methodological development and innovation to help advance this field of study, including: better understanding the role of power dynamics in shaping MSCs; development of a classification framework (or frameworks) of governance arrangements; exploring divergence of perspective and experience among MSC partners; identifying or generating theoretical frameworks for MSC that work across sectors and disciplines; developing intermediate indicators of collaboration; and increasing transferability of insights to other contexts. Collaboration with researchers outside of the health sector will enhance efforts in each of these areas, as will the establishment and strengthening of pluralistic MSC evidence networks also involving policymakers and practitioners.

show abstract

“…From this study, we found three components of health governance and leadership to be important (Table 1) [1]: establishing child survival as a national priority [2]; involving multi-sectoral stakeholders and collaborations to participate in MNCH planning and implementation; and [3] creating and maintaining accountability through a 'monitor-review-act' approach. Without this overarching guidance, individual MNCH interventions remain fragmented and under-resourced [17][18][19][20]. Although some countries were able to effectively implement the monitor-review-act approach, greater investment in accurate, responsive, and integrated monitoring and evaluation systems will be needed to assess progress towards the more complicated and ambitious SDGs [8,[21][22][23][24].…”

Section: A Summary Of Key Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring child survival for the Millennium Development Goals in Africa: what have we learned and what more is needed to evaluate the Sustainable Development Goals?

Brault

Mwinga

Kipp

et al. 2020

Global Health Action

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reducing child mortality is a key global health challenge. We examined reasons for greater or lesser success in meeting under-five mortality rate reductions, i.e. Millennium Development Goal #4, between 1990 and 2015 in Sub-Saharan Africa where child mortality remains high. We first examined factors associated with child mortality from all World Health Organization African Region nations during the Millennium Development Goal period. This analysis was followed by case studies of the facilitators and barriers to Millennium Development Goal #4 in four countries-Kenya, Liberia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Quantitative indicators, policy documents, and qualitative interviews and focus groups were collected from each country to examine factors within and across countries related to child mortality. We found familiar themes that highlighted the need for both specific services (e.g. primary care access, emergency obstetric and neonatal care) and general management (e.g. strong health governance and leadership, increasing community health workers, quality of care). We also identified methodological opportunities and challenges to assessing progress in child health, which can provide insights to similar efforts during the Sustainable Development Goal period. Specifically, it is important for countries to adapt general international goals and measurements to their national context, considering baseline mortality rates and health information systems, to develop country-specific goals. It will also be critical to develop more rigorous measurement tools and indicators to accurately characterize maternal, neonatal, and child health systems, particularly in the area of governance and leadership. Valuable lessons can be learned from Millennium Development Goal successes and failures, as well as how they are evaluated. As countries seek to lower child mortality further during the Sustainable Development Goal period, it will be necessary to prioritize and support countries in quantitative and qualitative data collection to assess and contextualize progress, identifying areas needing improvement.

show abstract

Business not as usual: how multisectoral collaboration can promote transformative change for health and sustainable development

Cited by 79 publications

References 27 publications

Recommendations for Effective Intersectoral Collaboration in Health Promotion Interventions: Results from Joint Action CHRODIS-PLUS Work Package 5 Activities

Recommendations for Effective Intersectoral Collaboration in Health Promotion Interventions: Results from Joint Action CHRODIS-PLUS Work Package 5 Activities

Methodological gaps and opportunities for studying multisectoral collaboration for health in low- and middle-income countries

Measuring child survival for the Millennium Development Goals in Africa: what have we learned and what more is needed to evaluate the Sustainable Development Goals?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About