ArticleBMC health services research2014
Implementation of collaborative governance in cross-sector innovation and education networks: evidence from the National Health Service in England.
Article in BMC health services research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unravelling collaborative governance dynamics within healthcare networks: a scoping review.Health policy and planning · 2024Article
- Inventory and analysis of literature on the organisation of eight European academic medical centres-A scoping review.PloS one · 2023Article
- Supporting efficiency improvement in public health systems: a rapid evidence synthesis.BMC health services research · 2022Review
- Aligning healthcare, public health and social services: A scoping review of the role of purpose, governance, finance and data.Health & social care in the community · 2022Article
- Driving Efficiency Improvement (EI): Exploratory Analysis of a Centralised Model in New South Wales.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2022Article
- Scaling Beyond Early Adopters: a Content Analysis of Literature and Key Informant Perspectives.Journal of general internal medicine · 2021Article
- Examining innovation in hospital units: a complex adaptive systems approach.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- New indicators and indexes for benchmarking university-industry-government innovation in medical and life science clusters: results from the European FP7 Regions of Knowledge HealthTIES project.Health research policy and systems · 2019Article
- Population health management guiding principles to stimulate collaboration and improve pharmaceutical care.Journal of health organization and management · 2018Article
- Maximising value from a United Kingdom Biomedical Research Centre: study protocol.Health research policy and systems · 2017Article
- A catalyst for system change: a case study of child health network formation, evolution and sustainability in Canada.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- Partnerships in global health and collaborative governance: lessons learnt from the Division of Tropical and Humanitarian Medicine at the Geneva University Hospitals.Globalization and health · 2016Article
- A multiple case study of intersectoral public health networks: experiences and benefits of using research.Health research policy and systems · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncreasingly, health policy-makers and managers all over the world look for alternative forms of organisation and governance in order to add more value and quality to their health systems. In recent years, the central government in England mandated several cross-sector health initiatives based on collaborative governance arrangements. However, there is little empirical evidence that examines local implementation responses to such centrally-mandated collaborations.
methodsData from the national study of Health Innovation and Education Clusters (HIECs) are used to provide comprehensive empirical evidence about the implementation of collaborative governance arrangements in cross-sector health networks in England. The study employed a mixed-methods approach, integrating both quantitative and qualitative data from a national survey of the entire population of HIEC directors (N = 17; response rate = 100%), a group discussion with 7 HIEC directors, and 15 in-depth interviews with HIEC directors and chairs.
resultsThe study provides a description and analysis of local implementation responses to the central government mandate to establish HIECs. The latter represent cross-sector health networks characterised by a vague mandate with the provision of a small amount of new resources. Our findings indicate that in the case of HIECs such a mandate resulted in the creation of rather fluid and informal partnerships, which over the period of three years made partial-to-full progress on governance activities and, in most cases, did not become self-sustaining without government funding.
conclusionThis study has produced valuable insights into the implementation responses in HIECs and possibly other cross-sector collaborations characterised by a vague mandate with the provision of a small amount of new resources. There is little evidence that local dominant coalitions appropriated the central HIEC mandate to their own ends. On the other hand, there is evidence of interpretation and implementation of the central mandate by HIEC leaders to serve their local needs. These findings augur well for Academic Health Science Networks, which pick up the mantle of large-scale, cross-sector collaborations for health and innovation. This study also highlights that a supportive policy environment and sufficient time would be crucial to the successful implementation of new cross-sector health collaborations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.