Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34018268›Full record

ArticleHealth & social care in the community2022

Aligning healthcare, public health and social services: A scoping review of the role of purpose, governance, finance and data.

Daniel Lanford, Aliza Petiwala, Glenn Landers, Karen Minyard

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Health & social care in the community, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Systemic and organizational barriers to primary chronic disease prevention: a qualitative study of public health organizations in Canada.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2026
    Article
  4. Digital pulse: Social media reaction to South Africa's National Health Insurance implementation.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Daniel LanfordGeorgia Health Policy Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2707-7417
Aliza PetiwalaGeorgia Health Policy Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Glenn LandersGeorgia Health Policy Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Karen MinyardGeorgia Health Policy Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Organisations spanning social services, public health and healthcare have increasingly experimented with collaboration as a tool for improving population health and reducing health disparities. While there has been progress, the results have fallen short of expectations. Reflecting on these shortcomings, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) recently proposed a new framework for cross-sector alignment intended to move the field towards improved outcomes. A central idea in this framework is that collaboratives will be more effective and sustainable if they develop collaborative systems in four core areas: shared purpose, governance, finance and shared data. The goal of this paper is to provide a foundation for research on the four core areas of the cross-sector alignment framework. Accordingly, this study is based on two guiding questions: (1) how are collaboratives currently implementing systems in the four core areas identified in the framework, and (2) what strategies does the literature offer for creating sustainable systems in these four areas? Given the emergent nature of research on health-oriented cross-sector collaboration and the broad research questions, we conducted a systematic scoping review including 179 relevant research papers and reports published internationally from the years 2010-2020. We identified the main contributions and coded each based on its relevance to the cross-sector alignment framework. We found that most papers focused on programme evaluations rather than theory testing, and while many strategies were offered, they tended to reflect a focus on short-term collaboration. The results also demonstrate that starting points and resource levels vary widely across individuals and organisations involved in collaborations. Accordingly, identifying and comparing distinct pathways by which different parties might pursue cross-sector alignment is an imperative for future work. More broadly, the literature is ripe with observations that could be assessed systematically to produce a firm foundation for research and practice.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CarePublic HealthHealth FacilitiesHumansSocial Workaligningcollaborationcross-sectorpopulation healthsocial determinants of health

Identifiers

PMID34018268
PMCPMC9291477

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.