Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33752755›Full record

ReviewSystematic reviews2021

Why do some inter-organisational collaborations in healthcare work when others do not? A realist review.

Justin Avery Aunger, Ross Millar, Joanne Greenhalgh, Russell Mannion, Anne-Marie Rafferty, Hugh McLeod

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. BMJ open · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. LinkingLearning health systems · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 'The Norm Is to Not Openly Collaborate': Using the Lens of Co-Production to Evaluate the Development of a COVID-19 ICU Triage Policy.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors.

Justin Avery AungerHealth Services Management Centre, Park House, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2RT, UK. J.Aunger@bham.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-6975-4570
Ross MillarHealth Services Management Centre, Park House, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2RT, UK.
Joanne GreenhalghSociology and Social Policy Department, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Russell MannionHealth Services Management Centre, Park House, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2RT, UK.
Anne-Marie RaffertyFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, London, SE1 8WA, UK.
Hugh McLeodPopulation Health Sciences, University of Bristol & NIHR Applied Research Collaboration West, 9th Floor, Whitefriars, Lewins Mead, Bristol, BS1 2NT, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInter-organisational collaboration is increasingly prominent within contemporary healthcare systems. A range of collaboration types such as alliances, networks, and mergers have been proposed as a means to turnaround organisations, by reducing duplication of effort, enabling resource sharing, and promoting innovations. However, in practice, due to the complexity of the process, such efforts are often rife with difficulty. Notable contributions have sought to make sense of this area; however, further understanding is needed in order to gain a better understanding of why some inter-organisational collaborations work when others do not, to be able to more effectively implement collaborations in the future.

methodsRealist review methodology was used with the intention of formulating context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) to explain how inter-organisational collaborations work and why, combining systematic and purposive literature search techniques. The systematic review encompassed searches for reviews, commentaries, opinion pieces, and case studies on HMIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Social Policy and Practice databases, and further searches were conducted using Google Scholar. Data were extracted from included studies according to relevance to the realist review.

resultsFifty-three papers were included, informing the development of programme theories of how, why, and when inter-organisational collaborations in healthcare work. Formulation of our programme theories incorporated the concepts of partnership synergy and collaborative inertia and found that it was essential to consider mechanisms underlying partnership functioning, such as building trust and faith in the collaboration to maximise synergy and thus collaborative performance. More integrative or mandated collaboration may lean more heavily on contract to drive collaborative behaviour.

conclusionAs the first realist review of inter-organisational collaborations in healthcare as an intervention for improvement, this review provides actionable evidence for policymakers and implementers, enhancing understanding of mechanisms underlying the functioning and performing of inter-organisational collaborations, as well as how to configure the context to aid success. Next steps in this research will test the results against further case studies and primary data to produce a further refined theory. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019149009.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareOrganizationsHealth FacilitiesHumansCollaborationContextHealthcareImplementationImprovementIntegrationPartnership workingProgramme theoryRealist reviewRealist synthesis

Identifiers

PMID33752755
PMCPMC7984506

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.