Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35351055›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2022

Facilitators and barriers of intersectoral co-operation to promote healthier and more environmentally friendly behaviour: a qualitative evaluation through focus groups for the INHERIT project.

Nina van der Vliet, Lea den Broeder, Maria Romeo-Velilla, Brigit Staatsen, Hanneke Kruize, Bettina Friedrich, A Jantine Schuit

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Methods for evaluating intersectoral action partnerships to address the social determinants of health: a scoping review.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Nina van der VlietNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, Netherlands. nina.van.der.vliet@rivm.nl.
Lea den BroederNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, Netherlands.
Maria Romeo-VelillaEuroHealthNet, Brussels, Belgium.
Brigit StaatsenNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, Netherlands.
Hanneke KruizeNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, Netherlands.
Bettina FriedrichInstitute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK.
A Jantine SchuitTilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands.
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment · NLAmsterdam University of Applied Sciences · NLEuroHealthNet · BETilburg University · NLUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTackling challenges related to health, environmental sustainability and equity requires many sectors to work together. This "intersectoral co-operation" can pose a challenge on its own. Research commonly focuses on one field or is conducted within one region or country. The aim of this study was to investigate facilitators and barriers regarding intersectoral co-operative behaviour as experienced in twelve distinct case studies in ten European countries. The COM-B behavioural system was applied to investigate which capabilities, opportunities and motivational elements appear necessary for co-operative behaviour.

methodTwelve focus groups were conducted between October 2018 and March 2019, with a total of 76 participants (policymakers, case study coordinators, governmental institutes and/or non-governmental organisations representing citizens or citizens). Focus groups were organised locally and held in the native language using a common protocol and handbook. One central organisation coordinated the focus groups and analysed the results. Translated data were analysed using deductive thematic analysis, applying previous intersectoral co-operation frameworks and the COM-B behavioural system.

resultsAmongst the main facilitators experienced were having highly motivated partners who find common goals and see mutual benefits, with good personal relationships and trust (Motivation). In addition, having supportive environments that provide opportunities to co-operate in terms of support and resources facilitated co-operation (Opportunity), along with motivated co-operation partners who have long-term visions, create good external visibility and who have clear agreements and clarity on roles from early on (Capability). Barriers included not having necessary and/or structural resources or enough time, and negative attitudes from specific stakeholders.

conclusionsThis study on facilitators and barriers to intersectoral co-operation in ten European countries confirms findings of earlier studies. This study also demonstrates that the COM-B model can serve as a relatively simple tool to understand co-operative behaviour in terms of the capability, opportunity and motivation required amongst co-operation partners from different sectors. Results can support co-operators' and policymakers' understanding of necessary elements of intersectoral co-operation. It can help them in developing more successful intersectoral co-operation when dealing with challenges of health, environmental sustainability and equity.

Indexed as

Health StatusMotivationEuropeFocus GroupsHumansBehaviour changeCase studiesCOM-BEnvironmentally friendly behaviourEquityFocus groupsHealth behaviourIntersectoral co-operationQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID35351055
PMCPMC8966286
OpenAlexW4221009068

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.