Cross-Sectoral Collaboration

Bliss, Dorothy E.; Mishra, Meenoo; Ayers, Jeanne; Lupi, Monica Valdes

doi:10.1097/phh.0000000000000330

Cited by 16 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These elements are otherwise known as the social determinants of heath. The opportunity or lack of opportunity to be healthy is too often associated with a person’s socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual identity, or disability’ ( Bliss et al , 2016 : S88).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Speak ‘hard truths’ about social determinants and health equity values, to make sure that policy meetings are not dominated by a focus on lifestyles ( Bliss et al , 2016 : S92).…”

Section: The Hiap Playbookmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It helped reduce the time in meetings devoted to individual lifestyles. Meetings focused on ‘hard truths’ on issues such as ‘structural racism’ to avoid racial inequalities and marginalisation being subsumed under ‘inequality’ ( Bliss et al , 2016 : S91).…”

Section: The Hiap Playbookmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The future of public health policymaking after COVID-19: a qualitative systematic review of lessons from Health in All Policies

Cairney¹,

Denny²,

Mitchell³

2021

Open Res Europe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: ‘Health in All Policies’ (HiAP) describes the pursuit of health equity. It has five main elements: treat health as a human right; identify evidence of the ‘social determinants’ of health inequalities, recognise that most powers to affect health are not held by health departments, promote intersectoral policymaking and collaboration inside and outside of government, and generate political will. Studies describe its potential but bemoan a major implementation gap. Some HiAP scholars learn from policymaking research how to understand this gap, but the use of policy theories is patchy. In that context, our guiding research question is: How does HiAP research use policy theory to understand policymaking? It allows us to zoom-out to survey the field and zoom-in to identify: the assumed and actual causes of policy change, and transferable lessons to HiAP scholars and advocates. Methods: Our qualitative systematic review (two phases, 2018 and 2020) identified 4972 HiAP articles. Of these, 113 journal articles (research and commentary) provide a non-trivial reference to policymaking (at least one reference to a policymaking concept). We use the 113 articles to produce a general HiAP narrative and explore how the relatively theory-informed articles enhance it. Results: Most articles focus on policy analysis (identifying policy problems and solutions) rather than policy theory (explaining policymaking dynamics). They report a disappointing gap between HiAP expectations and policy outcomes. Theory-informed articles contribute to a HiAP playbook to close that gap or a programme theory to design and evaluate HiAP in new ways. Conclusions: Few HiAP articles use policy theories for their intended purpose. Policy theories provide lessons to aid critical reflection on power, political dilemmas, and policymaking context. HiAP scholars seek more instrumental lessons, potentially at the cost of effective advocacy and research.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Speak ‘hard truths’ about social determinants and health equity values, to make sure that policy meetings are not dominated by a focus on lifestyles ( Bliss et al , 2016 : S92).…”

Section: The Hiap Playbookmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The future of public health policymaking after COVID-19: a qualitative systematic review of lessons from Health in All Policies

Cairney¹,

Denny²,

Mitchell³

2021

Open Res Europe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The first of these is to improve the integration of healthcare services through collaboration with others (e.g., employers, employment agencies or other healthcare agencies). Thus, the research in this category focuses on collaborations between organisations or sectors (Bliss, Mishra, Ayers, & Lupi, 2016), typically with a view to securing or developing more strategic partnerships among these entities with limited emphasis on collaborative practices.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research approaches to networked employment services: A systematic review

Andreassen¹,

Breit

Saltkjel³

2020

Soc Policy Adm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on networked services aimed at the (re)employment of groups marginalised from the labour market has gained momentum in different scholarly traditions (e.g., public administration, healthcare and social policy), but the topic remains somewhat fragmented. In this paper, we systematise and synthesise this research with the aim of outlining distinct research approaches, facilitating increased cross-disciplinary understandings and promoting interdisciplinary research. Based on a systematic review of the literature (1990-2018, n = 273), we highlight four dominant research approaches: rehabilitation, disability, welfare and governance. We show that these research approaches involve distinct conceptualisations of labour market inclusion, networked services and the target groups. Nevertheless, the research approaches also apply similar terms and concepts (e.g., partnership, collaboration) but with different (more or less implicit) connotations, which lead to fragmentation. We do not suggest that there be a unified use of concepts across traditions; however, we argue for the necessity of increased awareness of the similarities and differences between these research traditions in order to increase understanding of the networked employment services available to marginalised groups.

show abstract

“…Education studies are more likely to centre race and racism, often using ‘critical policy analysis’ (research to defend marginalised populations when analysing policy problems and proposing solutions). These issues are not absent in HiAP research ( Baum et al ., 2019 ; Bliss et al ., 2016 ; Corburn et al ., 2014 ; see also D’Ambruoso et al ., 2021 ; Selvarajah et al ., 2020 ). However, the included education studies have a greater focus on minoritization (the social construction of minority groups, and the rules to treat them in a different way from a dominant majority) and the equity initiatives that – intentionally and unintentionally - fail to address race and racism.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The future of education equity policy in a COVID-19 world: a qualitative systematic review of lessons from education policymaking

Cairney¹,

Kippin²

2022

Open Res Europe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: COVID-19 had a major global impact on education, prompting concerns about its unequal effects and some impetus to reboot equity strategies. Yet, policy processes exhibit major gaps between such expectations and outcomes, and similar inequalities endured for decades before the pandemic. Our objective is to establish how education researchers, drawing on policy concepts and theories, explain and seek to address this problem. Methods: A qualitative systematic review (2020-21), to identify peer reviewed research and commentary articles on education, equity, and policymaking, in specialist and general databases (ERIC, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane/ Social Systems Evidence). We did not apply additional quality measures. We used an immersive and inductive approach to identify key themes. We use these texts to produce a general narrative and explore how policy theory articles inform it. Results: 140 texts (109 articles included; 31 texts snowballed) provide a non-trivial reference to policymaking. Limiting inclusion to English-language produced a bias towards Global North articles. Our comparison with a review of health equity research highlights distinctive elements in education. First, education equity is ambiguous and contested, with no settled global definition or agenda (although some countries and international organisations have disproportionate influence). Second, researchers critique ‘neoliberal’ approaches that dominate policymaking at the expense of ‘social justice’. Third, more studies provide ‘bottom-up’ analysis of ‘implementation gaps’. Fourth, more studies relate inequity to ineffective policymaking to address marginalised groups. Conclusions: Few studies use policy theories to explain policymaking, but there is an education-specific literature performing a similar role. Compared to health research, there is more use of critical policy analysis to reflect on power and less focus on technical design issues. There is high certainty that current neoliberal policies are failing, but low certainty about how to challenge them successfully.

show abstract

Cross-Sectoral Collaboration

Cited by 16 publications

References 2 publications

The future of public health policymaking after COVID-19: a qualitative systematic review of lessons from Health in All Policies

The future of public health policymaking after COVID-19: a qualitative systematic review of lessons from Health in All Policies

Research approaches to networked employment services: A systematic review

The future of education equity policy in a COVID-19 world: a qualitative systematic review of lessons from education policymaking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About