Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30383254›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of public health2018

Comparative institutional analysis for public health: governing voluntary collaborative agreements for public health in England and the Netherlands.

Marleen P M Bekker, Nicholas Mays, Jan Kees Helderman, Mark Petticrew, Maria W J Jansen, Cecile Knai, Dirk Ruwaard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. TSG : tijdschrift voor gezondheidswetenschappen · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Towards trust-based governance of health data research.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Marleen P M BekkerDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Nicholas MaysPolicy Innovation Research Unit, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Jan Kees HeldermanDepartment of Public Administration, Institute for Management Research, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Mark PetticrewPolicy Innovation Research Unit, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Maria W J JansenDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Cecile KnaiPolicy Innovation Research Unit, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Dirk RuwaardDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Democratic institutions and state-society relations shape governance arrangements and expectations between public and private stakeholders about public health impact. We illustrate this with a comparison between the English Public Health Responsibility Deal (RD) and the Dutch 'All About Health…' (AaH) programme. As manifestations of a Whole-of-Society approach, in which governments, civil society and business take responsibility for the co-production of economic utility and good health, these programmes are two recent collaborative platforms based on voluntary agreements to improve public health. Using a 'most similar cases' design, we conducted a comparative secondary analysis of data from the evaluations of the two programmes. The underlying rationale of both programmes was that voluntary agreements would be better suited than regulation to encourage business and civil society to take more responsibility for improving health. Differences between the two included: expectations of an enforcing versus facilitative role for government; hierarchical versus horizontal coordination; big business versus civil society participants; top-down versus bottom-up formulation of voluntary pledges and progress monitoring for accountability versus for learning and adaptation. Despite the attempt in both programmes to base voluntary commitments on trust, the English 'shadow of hierarchy' and adversarial state-society relationships conditioned non-governmental parties to see the pledges as controlling, quasi-contractual agreements that were only partially lived up to. The Dutch consensual political tradition enabled a civil society-based understanding and gradual acceptance of the pledges as the internalization by partner organizations of public health values within their operations. We conclude that there are institutional limitations to the implementation of generic trust-building and learning-based models of change 'Whole-of-Society' approaches.

Indexed as

Health PolicyPublic HealthPublic Health AdministrationPublic-Private Sector PartnershipsCooperative BehaviorDelivery of Health CareEnglandGovernmentHumansNetherlandsSocial Responsibility

Identifiers

PMID30383254
PMCPMC6209813

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.