Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21678371›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2011

Collaboration between local health and local government agencies for health improvement.

Sara L Hayes, Mala K Mann, Fiona M Morgan, Hilary Kitcher, Mark J Kelly, Alison L Weightman

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sara L Hayeson secondment to Department of Public Health and Health Professions, Welsh Assembly Government, 4th Floor North Wing, Welsh Assembly Government, Cathays Park, Cardiff, Wales, UK, CF10 3NQ.
Mala K Mann
Fiona M Morgan
Hilary Kitcher
Mark J Kelly
Alison L Weightman

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn many countries, national, regional and local inter- and intra-agency collaborations have been introduced in order to improve health outcomes. Evidence is needed on the effectiveness of locally-developed partnerships which target changes in individual health outcomes and behaviours.

objectivesTo evaluate the effects of interagency collaboration between local health and local government agencies on health outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: Twenty-five databases were searched using a highly sensitive search strategy. 'Snowballing' methods were also used, including expert contact, website searching and reference list follow up. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series (ITS) where the study reported on interagency collaboration between health and local government agencies. Studies were selected independently in duplicate by two of five authors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: From the team of five review authors, two authors independently conducted data extraction and assessed risk of bias for each study. MAIN

resultsEleven studies were identified, presenting information on a total of 26,686 participants. Owing to the heterogeneity between studies a narrative synthesis was undertaken. The included studies covered a range of topics. Six studies examined mental health initiatives, of which one study showed health benefit; four showed modest improvement in one or more of the outcomes measured, but no clear overall health gain; and one study showed no evidence of health gain. Two studies were related to lifestyle improvements of which one failed to show health gains for the intervention population, while the other showed more unhealthy lifestyle behaviours persisting in the intervention population. Three studies were related to chronic disease management and all three failed to demonstrate health gains. AUTHORS'

conclusionsCollaboration between local health and local government is commonly considered best practice. However, the review did not identify any reliable evidence that inter‑agency collaboration, compared to standard services, leads to health improvement. A few studies identified component benefits but these were not reflected in overall outcome scores and could have resulted from the use of significant additional resources. Although agencies appear enthusiastic about collaboration, methodological flaws in the primary studies and incomplete implementation of initiatives have prevented the development of a strong evidence base. If these flaws are addressed in future studies (for example by providing greater detail on the implementation of programs, using more robust designs, with integrated process evaluations and measurement of health outcomes) it could provide a better understanding of what might work and why.When updating this review, we will analyse any partnership or process evaluations of our included studies to try to identify markers of success in local collaborative partnerships that could inform policy developments in the future.

Indexed as

Interinstitutional RelationsLocal GovernmentGovernment AgenciesHealth PromotionHealth Systems AgenciesHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.