ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Understanding the influence of power dynamics in intersectoral collaboration: A realist evaluation in Assam, India.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- How to do (or not to do) realist evaluations to advance theory, practice, and justice in health systems research.Health policy and planning · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intersectoral Collaboration (ISC) involves multiple sectors working together to tackle complex challenges that no single sector can address alone. In global health, where interconnected issues demand holistic approaches, ISC aligns goals and resources to enhance effectiveness and equity. However, power dynamics within and between sectors can either foster synergy or create tensions, shaping ISC outcomes. This study explores how, why, for whom, in what contexts, and to what extent power dynamics influence ISC in a northeastern state of India. A realist evaluation was conducted in Assam, India. Six Programme Theories (PTs) from a prior realist review were tested and refined through theory-driven realist interviews with 18 stakeholders across different sectors. Data were analysed using Context-Mechanism-Outcome Configurations (CMOCs) to refine PTs, offering a nuanced understanding of how individual, institutional, and contextual factors influence ISC outcomes. A total of 62 CMOCs, grouped into 17 demi-regularities, refined six PTs on power dynamics in ISC. Fair participation fostered empowerment, while proactive leadership enhances motivation, though resource gaps may weaken these effects. Fair resource allocation reduced power imbalances, improving collaboration, whereas hierarchy and unclear roles breed distrust. Personal relationships helped build trust and overcome hierarchy. Findings emphasise that improving ISC requires attention to both structural and relational mechanisms through designing programs that leverage both of these. Given this single-district, qualitative case study, the findings are context-specific to Dibrugarh, Assam, and should be transferred cautiously to comparable settings. Future research could refine programme theories into a middle-range theory, enhancing their transferability to other settings.
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.