Collaboration between local health and local government agencies for health improvement

Hayes, Sara; Mann, Mala; Morgan, Fiona; Kelly, Mark; Weightman, Alison Lesley

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007825.pub6

Cited by 36 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 162 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nine reviews did not include any studies from low- or middle-income countries (Gilbody 2005; Fung 2008; Pariyo 2009; Green 2010; Nilsen 2010; Hayes 2012; Rashidian 2012; Acosta 2014; Grobler 2015), and four reviews only included studies conducted in low- or middle-income countries (Lagarde 2009; Prost 2013; Rockers 2013; El-Jardali 2015). Overall, 74% of the studies from the included reviews took place in high-income countries.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three reviews considered interventions related to authority and accountability for health policies (Green 2010; Hayes 2012; Rashidian 2012). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hayes 2012 examined the effects of interagency collaboration between local health and other local government agencies and services, comparing it with standard practice or no intervention. The review included 16 studies, all conducted in high-income countries.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These differences are particularly important in relation to interventions that require substantial resources for design and implementation or that may require advanced technology or specialised skills for delivery, for instance systems for reimbursement and reference pricing for medicines (Green 2010; Acosta 2014), for fraud detection and response actions (Rashidian 2012), and for public disclosure of performance data (Fung 2008). These differences may also affect the applicability of interventions that are complex and may require substantial changes to the organisation of care – for example, improved collaboration between local health and local government agencies (Hayes 2012). It is therefore uncertain whether similar effects are likely if the interventions assessed in these reviews are implemented in low-income countries.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Governance arrangements for health systems in low-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews

Herrera

Lewin

Paulsen

et al. 2017

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundGovernance arrangements include changes in rules or processes that determine authority and accountability for health policies, organisations, commercial products and health professionals, as well as the involvement of stakeholders in decision-making. Changes in governance arrangements can affect health and related goals in numerous ways, generally through changes in authority, accountability, openness, participation and coherence. A broad overview of the findings of systematic reviews can help policymakers, their technical support staff and other stakeholders to identify strategies for addressing problems and improving the governance of their health systems.ObjectivesTo provide an overview of the available evidence from up-to-date systematic reviews about the effects of governance arrangements for health systems in low-income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on governance arrangements and informing refinements of the framework for governance arrangements outlined in the overview.MethodsWe searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ Evidence up to 17 December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well-conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of governance arrangements on patient outcomes (health and health behaviours), the quality or utilisation of healthcare services, resource use (health expenditures, healthcare provider costs, out-of-pocket payments, cost-effectiveness), healthcare provider outcomes (such as sick leave), or social outcomes (such as poverty, employment) and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations that were important enough to compromise the reliability of the findings of the review. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence) and assessments of the relevance of findings to low-income countries.Main resultsWe identified 7272 systematic reviews and included 21 of them in this overview (19 primary reviews and 2 supplementary reviews). We focus here on the results of the 19 primary reviews, one of which had important methodological limitations. The other 18 were reliable (with only minor limitations).We grouped the governance arrangements addressed in the reviews into five categories: authority and accountability for health policies (three reviews); authority and accountability for organisations (two reviews); authority and accountability for commercial products (three reviews); authority and accountability for health professionals (seven reviews); and stakeholder involvement (four reviews).Overall, we found desirable effects for the following interventions on at least one outcome, with moderate- or high-certainty...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three reviews considered interventions related to authority and accountability for health policies (Green 2010; Hayes 2012; Rashidian 2012). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Governance arrangements for health systems in low-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews

Herrera

Lewin

Paulsen

et al. 2017

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thematic analysis was applied to the documentary and transcribed interview data [24, 25]. Researcher MB then grouped relevant codes together in order to identify further patterns within each theme.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using evaluability assessment to assess local community development health programmes: a Scottish case-study

Belford

Robertson

Jepson

2017

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundEvaluation of the potential effectiveness of a programme’s objectives (health or otherwise) is important in demonstrating how programmes work. However, evaluations are expensive and can focus on unrealistic outcomes not grounded in strong theory, especially where there is pressure to show effectiveness. The aim of this research was to demonstrate that the evaluability assessment (a cost-effective pre-evaluation tool that primarily gives quick, constructive feedback) can be used to help develop programme and outcome objectives to improve programmes while they run and to assist in producing more effective evaluations. This was done using the example of a community development programme aiming to improve health and reduce health inequalities in its target population.MethodsThe setting was Glasgow, Scotland, UK and focused on the Health Issues in the Community programme. Data were collected from documents and nine individual stakeholder interviews. Thematic analysis and a realist approach were used to analyse both datasets and, in conjunction with a workshop with stakeholders, produce a logic model of the programme theory and related evaluation options to explore further.ResultsFive main themes emerged from the analysis: History; Framework; Structure and Delivery of the Course; Theory of Action; and Barriers to Delivery and Successful Outcomes. These themes aided in drafting the logic model which revealed they key programme activities (e.g. facilitating group learning) and 23 potential outcomes. The majority of these outcomes (16) were deemed to be short-term outcomes (more easily measured within the timeframe of an individual being involved in the programme) e.g. increased self-esteem or awareness of individual/community health. The remaining 6 outcomes were deemed longer-term and included outcomes such as increased social capital and individual mental health and wellbeing.ConclusionsWe have shown that the evaluability assessment tool can be applied to the evaluation of community health programmes, providing short- and long-term outcomes that could be evaluated to demonstrate effectiveness and avoid unnecessary or poorly designed full-scale evaluations. This type of pre-evaluation method is already a useful resource for national policy evaluations, but could be a valuable evaluation tool for other regional or community health programmes.

show abstract

Evaluation of collaborative mental health services in Latin America: Theoretical and methodological basis

Sapag,

Rush

2023

Health Planning & Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesApproaches to collaborative mental health care (CMHC) have been implemented in many countries to strengthen the accessibility and delivery of mental health services in primary care. However, there are not well‐defined frameworks to evaluate CMHC models. The purpose of this article is to identify, contextualize and discuss relevant health services research approaches, theory, and evaluation models for the development of an appropriate evaluation framework in order to foster effective CMHC in Latin America.MethodsA comprehensive literature review informed a critical analysis of relevant theories and alternative methods to be considered in the development of the framework.ResultsSpecific health services research frameworks are discussed in the context of evaluating CMHC. Two theoretical perspectives ‐ collaboration theory and systems theory – and three evaluation models‐ realistic, developmental and collaborative ‐ are analyzed in terms of their relevance. Methodological implications are identified.ConclusionAn appropriate evaluation framework for CMHC in Latin America needs to reflect theoretical and contextual considerations and relevant evaluation approaches and methods, including key dimensions and attributes/variables, core indicators, and recommendations for implementation.

show abstract

Collaboration between local health and local government agencies for health improvement

Cited by 36 publications

References 162 publications

Governance arrangements for health systems in low-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews

Governance arrangements for health systems in low-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews

Using evaluability assessment to assess local community development health programmes: a Scottish case-study

Evaluation of collaborative mental health services in Latin America: Theoretical and methodological basis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About