Partners in health? A systematic review of the impact of organizational partnerships on public health outcomes in England between 1997 and 2008

Smith, Katherine E.; Bambra, Clare; Joyce, Kerry; Perkins, Neil; Hunter, D.J.; Blenkinsopp, Elizabeth

doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdp002

Cited by 73 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…University of Medical Sciences as a service organization and education and treatment over other organizations need to contribute to systems thinking and working partnership to deliver high quality services to patients. On the other hand, a recent systematic review highlighted the limited evidence around working partnership in public health 17 . Therefore, this study examined the relationship between systemic thinking and working partnership in Zahedan University of Medical Sciences (ZAUMS) staff.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systemic Thinking and Working Partnership: A Cross Sectional Study in the South of Iran, 2015

Khammarnia

Kassani

Peyvand

et al. 2017

Bangladesh J Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Background: Systemic thinking can provide practice in multidisciplinary team working and improve organizational efficacy. This study aimed to determine the association between systemic thinking and working partnership in the employees of a medical sciences university in the south of Iran. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed in Zahedan University of Medical Sciences (ZAUMS) in 2015. The study population consisted of all employees in ZAUMS; 370 participants were selected through stratified random sampling. Two standard questionnaires were used for data gathering. The data were analyzed in SPSS (v21) using Pearson, One way ANOVA and logistic regression. The level of significance was considered as 0.05. Results: In this study, 225 participants (60.8%) were female and the mean age of the participants' was 34.7±8.7. The mean of working partnership for 362 participants was higher than the standard mean. Systemic thinking had a positive association with working partnership (p=0.001) and married status of the participants (p=0.04). Working partnership in male and older staff was more than others in ZAUMS (p<0.001 and 0.01, respectively). Conclusion: Systematic thinking had a positive association with the employees' working partnership. Moreover, the male staff had better systematic thinking. It is recommended that the managers should promote systematic thinking in staff especially in females for better partnership and efficacy in organizations.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systemic Thinking and Working Partnership: A Cross Sectional Study in the South of Iran, 2015

Khammarnia

Kassani

Peyvand

et al. 2017

Bangladesh J Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…23 However, there are two main weaknesses in this evaluation. First, a common lacuna 24 ; outcomes were not assessed because of resource constraints and methodological difficulties in ascribing health gain to certain types of policy and programme. 25 Therefore, it was not possible to assess the impact of strategic partnerships either on healthy public policy or population health.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Partnership Working in Cities in Phase IV of the WHO Healthy Cities Network

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An intersectoral partnership for health improvement is a requirement of the WHO European Healthy Cities Network of municipalities. A review was undertaken in 59 cities based on responses to a structured questionnaire covering phase IV of the network (2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008). Cities usually combined formal and informal working partnerships in a pattern seen in previous phases. However, these encompassed more sectors than previously and achieved greater degrees of collaborative planning and implementation. Additional WHO technical support and networking in phase IV significantly enhanced collaboration with the urban planning sector. Critical success factors were high-level political commitment and a well-organized Healthy City office. Partnerships remain a successful component of Healthy City working. The core principles, purpose and intellectual rationale for intersectoral partnerships remain valid and fit for purpose. This applied to long-established phase III cities as well as newcomers to phase IV. The network, and in particular the WHO brand, is well regarded and encourages political and organizational engagement and is a source of support and technical expertise. A key challenge is to apply a more rigorous analytical framework and theory-informed approach to reviewing partnership and collaboration parameters.

show abstract

“…In addition, the bibliographies of all included studies were hand searched and information on unpublished or in-progress research was requested via author contact. The search strategy and quality of papers reviewed is described in more detail in Smith, et al (2009). The searches located 1058 references, 895 of which were excluded at the title and abstract stage; a further 132 were excluded after reading the articles in full as they did not meet the inclusion criteria.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘What counts is what works’? New Labour and partnerships in public health

Perkins¹,

Smith²,

Hunter³

et al. 2010

Policy &Amp; Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. 'What Counts is What Works'? New Labour and Partnerships in Public HealthNeil Perkins, Katherine Smith, David J Hunter, Clare Bambra, Kerry Joyce. Durham UniversityKey words: partnership, public health, health inequalities.Word count: 7,998. AbstractPartnership working has been a central feature of New Labour"s approach to the delivery of health and social policy since 1997. A number of partnership based initiatives have centred on reducing health inequalities and improving health. This paper reports on the findings from a systematic review of the impact of partnership working on public health, and considers whether these partnerships have delivered better health outcomes for local/target populations.It finds that there is little evidence that partnerships have produced better health outcomes for local/target populations or reduced health inequalities.

show abstract

Partners in health? A systematic review of the impact of organizational partnerships on public health outcomes in England between 1997 and 2008

Abstract: This systematic review suggests that there is not yet any clear evidence of the effects of public health partnerships on health outcomes. More appropriately designed and timed studies are required to establish whether, and how, partnerships are effective.

Cited by 73 publications

References 34 publications

Systemic Thinking and Working Partnership: A Cross Sectional Study in the South of Iran, 2015

Systemic Thinking and Working Partnership: A Cross Sectional Study in the South of Iran, 2015

Evaluation of Partnership Working in Cities in Phase IV of the WHO Healthy Cities Network

‘What counts is what works’? New Labour and partnerships in public health

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About