Healthy partnerships,healthy citizens? An international review of partnerships in health and social care and patient/user outcomes

As a result of changes in the governance of health and social care organizations across developed welfare states they are under increasing pressure to work in partnership with each other (at an organizational and inter-professional level) and with the private and voluntary sector. Drawing on a comparative literature review of the theoretical and empirical evidence from health and social care partnerships across developed welfare states, this paper aims to examine the policy drivers behind such changes and the effects the changes have had on the governance of health and social care, the results for service commissioners and practitioners, and particularly the results for patients and service users. It examines some of the evidence that suggests that patient/user involvement and outcomes may at best be unaffected, and at worst be negatively compromised by shifts towards increasing partnership working in health and social care. It will conclude by discussing what lessons can be drawn about service re-organization and user involvement in welfare organizations generally, and how best to protect the interests of vulnerable and disenfranchised groups of service users.     

The costs and benefits to participants in community partnerships: a paradox?

This article examines the degree of stakeholder participation in health and social partnership schemes in relation to their perceptions of benefits, costs, satisfaction, commitment, and ownership. The findings suggest that (a) involvement, commitment, and sense of ownership were invariably associated with high benefits and mostly with low costs; (b) benefits, commitment, and ownership might be more sensitive monitors of involvement than costs and satisfaction; (c) an increase in involvement was initially associated with decreased costs and increased satisfaction up to a point beyond which costs increased and satisfaction decreased despite increasing benefits; and (d) favorable cost-benefit ratios were perceived when the benefits were at least 1.6 times the costs. Partnership initiatives need to explore the involvement "cut-off" point at which the costs (and satisfaction) might change direction. For favorable cost-benefit ratios, benefits need to be at least 60% more than costs (Ansari's paradox).     

How does network structure affect partnerships for promoting physical activity? Evidence from Brazil and Colombia

The objective of this study was to describe the network structure and factors associated with collaboration in two networks that promote physical activity (PA) in Brazil and Colombia. Organizations that focus on studying and promoting PA in Brazil (35) and Colombia (53) were identified using a modified one-step reputational snowball sampling process. Participants completed an on-line survey between December 2008 and March 2009 for the Brazil network, and between April and June 2009 for the Colombia network. Network stochastic modeling was used to investigate the likelihood of reported inter-organizational collaboration. While structural features of networks were significant predictors of collaboration within each network, the coefficients and other network characteristics differed. Brazil's PA network was decentralized with a larger number of shared partnerships. Colombia's PA network was centralized and collaboration was influenced by perceived importance of peer organizations. On average, organizations in the PA network of Colombia reported facing more barriers (1.5 vs. 2.5 barriers) for collaboration. Future studies should focus on how these different network structures affect the implementation and uptake of evidence-based PA interventions.     

External partnerships and prevention relative to psychoactive substances: what should be the position of the school and its partners?

School health education is one of the primary missions of the educational system which is characterised by the involvement of numerous professional institutions, associations, and others, at the heart of academic establishments. The need for partnership within this complex domain has been recognised and affirmed by the official publications of the national Ministry of Education as it has been in actions. In so far as the move towards the recourse of external intervention, should this be considered as the result of a true partnership or an act of simple delegation (or subcontracting)? Firstly, this article proposes to define the concept of partnership. Secondly, it presents the results of a study on the implementation of drug-use prevention in high schools who underline the importance of the problems associated with partnership in this field and attempt to put into perspective the respective points of view of the educational teams and external actors. On the basis of these results, it proposes a typology of the networks from which the activities are built, then analyses the conditions necessary in order that health education be implemented within a framework of partnership established on the competencies, differences and contributions of each partner.     

Global public-private partnerships: Part I--A new development in health?

The proliferation of public-private partnerships is rapidly reconfiguring the international health landscape. This article (part I of two on the subject) traces the changing nature of partnership, and discusses the definitional and conceptual ambiguities surrounding the term. After defining global public-private partnerships (GPPPs) for health development, we analyse the factors which have led to the convergence of public and private actors and discuss the consequences of the trend toward partnership between UN agencies (including the World Bank) and commercial entities in the health sector. Generic factors such as globalization and disillusionment with the UN, and factors specific to the health sector, such as market failure in product development for orphan diseases, are examined. Reviewed are the interests, policies, practices and concerns of the UN, the private-for-profit sector, bilateral organizations, and governments of low-income countries with respect to public-private partnership. While GPPPs bring much needed resources to problems of international health, we highlight concerns regarding this new organizational format. Part II, which will be published in the May issue of the Bulletin, presents a conceptual framework for analysing health GPPPs and explores the issues raised.     

“Not an afterthought”: Power imbalances in systemic partnerships between health service providers and consumers in a hospital setting

Contemporary health policies require consumers be involved at all stages of health service planning, implementation, delivery, and evaluation. The extent to which this policy is met, however, varies widely across the sector. One barrier to meeting policy requirements is power imbalances within systemic partnerships between consumers and other health professionals. Between September 2016 and February 2017, interviews were conducted with health care managers, clinicians, and consumers working on partnerships across various health service departments in one hospital. An exploratory, qualitative approach was used. Data were analysed using principles of discursive psychology, which focuses on the way power is constructed through participants' accounts of partnerships. The findings suggest providers have significant power over consumers in partnerships at the systematic level of health services. Managers were responsible for setting the parameters for partnerships, and consumers were seen more as a resource to be used by health services rather than as equal partners to work with. The findings suggest that although contemporary health policies require partnership with consumers, better guidelines are needed to specifically address and challenge power imbalances within these partnerships.     

Educational partnerships for public health: do stakeholders perceive similar outcomes?

Based on a study of five W.K. Kellogg Foundation-funded educational partnerships, this article reports the stakeholders' views on five sets of anticipated outcomes: health professions education impact, curricula and services, students, community and policy, and sustainability and structural change outcomes. The participants had a reasonable degree of certainty that their partnerships would achieve the intended outcomes. Using tightly defined "specific" stakeholder groups for the analyses reflected a more precise picture than employing "generic" groups. Partner groups that perceived greater certainty about the outcomes had higher scores on other related partnership parameters. For partnership working, the article proposes an orbital hypothesis of stakeholders' perceptions for further investigation.     

One size fits all partnerships? What explains community partnership leadership skills?

The authors evaluated W. K. Kellogg-funded Community Partnerships (CPs) between academic, health service, and community partners in South Africa. Stakeholders (N = 668 respondents) completed questionnaires to explore the operational, functional and organisational factors that contribute to members' perceptions of the skills of their CPs' leadership. Ten factors accounted for 53% of leadership skills across five participating CPs and six stakeholder groups. Each CP displayed its unique footprint of factors that accounted for its leadership levels. Similarly, each stakeholder group had its unique signature of factors that were associated with its leadership. Two factors (communication mechanisms and operational understanding) accounted for more than 25% of leadership skills; management capabilities and participation benefits accounted for 4% and 3%; and effectiveness, benefits to difficulties ratio of being a member, engagement in education, flow of information and sense of ownership accounted for 2% to 3% each. Attention to these and other factors is warranted.     

Global public-private partnerships: Part II--What are the health issues for global governance?

This is the second of a two-part review of global public-private partnerships (GPPPs) for health development. Part I was published in the April issue of the Bulletin (Vol. 78, No. 4). The recent emergence of GPPPs is rapidly reconfiguring the international health landscape. While most multilateral and bilateral agencies are currently grappling with how to proceed, there is little information in the public domain concerning how individual partnerships work and to date very little consideration of the many implications of this trend. This paper differentiates between product-based, product development-based and issues/systems-based GPPPs and describes a number of examples of each type in the health sector. The benefits of these initiatives, not least the major resources which they harness for specific health problems, are identified. The final section of the paper explores the implications and dilemmas posed by GPPPs. It discusses whether or not shared goals can transcend conflicting values and mandates and how governance of partnership arrangements may transform and undermine certain attributes of multilateral organizations. The paper concludes that the current climate of goodwill between public and private sectors offers an opportunity that should not be missed: it can be used not only to foster new partnership but to ensure that partnership is truly in the interests of international public health.