health partnership
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

177
(FIVE YEARS 51)

H-INDEX

11
(FIVE YEARS 2)

Author(s):  
Monika Derrien ◽  
Toby Bloom ◽  
Stacy Duke

The USDA Forest Service has recently piloted health partnerships that facilitate therapeutic outdoor experiences on national forests, building on the growing evidence of the multiple health benefits of activities and time spent in nature. This article presents brief case studies of three pilot partnerships between national forests and health organizations in California, Indiana, and Georgia (USA). These partnerships deliver nature-based programming for the general public as well as those who are in recovery from major surgeries, have been diagnosed with cancer, and face chronic health challenges. To help recreation managers and policy makers understand the potential for such local health partnerships in a federal context, we describe the programs’ enabling conditions, their incorporation of service and stewardship activities, and the challenges and successes they have faced. Insights inform an expanding variety of health partnership models that advance the interconnectedness of human and ecosystem health on public lands as a fundamental dimension of sustainable recreation management.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. e047085
Author(s):  
Marina Soley-Bori ◽  
Raghu Lingam ◽  
Rose-Marie Satherley ◽  
Julia Forman ◽  
Lizzie Cecil ◽  
...  

IntroductionThe Children and Young People’s Health Partnership (CYPHP) Evelina London Model of Care is a new approach to integrated care delivery for children and young people (CYP) with common health complaints and chronic conditions. CYPHP includes population health management (services shaped by data-driven understanding of population and individual needs, applied in this case to enable proactive case finding and tailored biopsychosocial care), specialist clinics with multidisciplinary health teams and training resources for professionals working with CYP. This complex health system strengthening programme has been implemented in South London since April 2018 and will be evaluated using a cluster randomised controlled trial with an embedded process evaluation. This protocol describes the within-trial and beyond-trial economic evaluation of CYPHP.Methods and analysisThe economic evaluation will identify, measure and value resources and health outcome impacts of CYPHP compared with enhanced usual care from a National Health Service/Personal Social Service and a broader societal perspective. The study population includes 90 000 CYP under 16 years of age in 23 clusters (groups of general practitioner (GP) practices) to assess health service use and costs, with more detailed cost-effectiveness analysis of a targeted sample of 2138 CYP with asthma, eczema or constipation (tracer conditions). For the cost-effectiveness analysis, health outcomes will be measured using the Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) using the Child Health Utility 9 Dimensions (CHU-9D) measure. To account for changes in parental well-being, the Warwick-Edinburg Mental Well-being Scale will be integrated with QALYs in a cost–benefit analysis. The within-trial economic evaluation will be complemented by a novel long-term model that expands the analytical horizon to 10 years. Analyses will adhere to good practice guidelines and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence public health reference case.Ethics and disseminationThe study has received ethical approval from South West-Cornwall and Plymouth Research Ethics Committee (REC Reference: 17/SW/0275). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, made available in briefing papers for local decision-makers, and provided to the local community through website and public events. Findings will be generalisable to community-based models of care, especially in urban settings.Trial registration numberNCT03461848.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Umphrey ◽  
George Paasi ◽  
William Windsor ◽  
Grace Abongo ◽  
Jessica Evert ◽  
...  

Abstract BACKGROUNDVirtual global health partnership initiatives (VGHPIs) evolved rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure partnership continuity, however the current landscape for VGHPI use and preference is unknown. This study aimed to increase understanding of GH partners’ perspectives on VGHPIs.METHODSFrom 15 October to 30 November 2020, authors conducted an online, international survey using snowball sampling to document pandemic-related changes in partnership activities; preferences for VGHPIs; and perceived acceptability and barriers. Analysis stratified responses by country income classification and partnership type. RESULTSA total of 128 respondents described 219 partnerships. 152/219 (69%) partnerships were transnational, 157/219 (72%) were of >5 years duration, and 127/219 (60%) included bidirectional site visits. High-income country (HIC) partners sent significantly more learners to low- to middle-income country (LMIC) partner sites (P<0.01). Participants commented on pandemic-related disruptions affecting 217/219 (99%) partnerships; 195/217 (90%) were disruption to activities; 122/217 (56%) to communication; 73/217 (34%) to access to professional support; and 72/217 (33%) to funding. Respondents indicated that VGHPIs would be important to 206/219 (94%) of their partnerships moving forward. There were overall differences in resource availability, technological capacity, and VGHPI preferences between LMIC and HIC respondents, with a statistically significant difference in VGHPI acceptability (p<0.001). There was no significant difference between groups regarding VGHPIs’ perceived barriers. CONCLUSIONSThe pandemic disrupted essential partnership elements, compounding differences between LMIC and HIC partners in their resources and preferences for partnership activities. VGHPIs have the potential to bridge new and existing gaps and maximize gains, bi-directionality, and equity in partnerships during and after COVID-19.


2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (10) ◽  
pp. e006615
Author(s):  
Charlotte Devon Hemingway ◽  
Mohamed Bella Jalloh ◽  
Richard Silumbe ◽  
Haja Wurie ◽  
Esther Mtumbuka ◽  
...  

IntroductionDisease-specific ‘vertical’ programmes and health system strengthening (HSS) ‘horizontal’ programmes are not mutually exclusive; programmes may be implemented with the dual objectives of achieving both disease-specific and broader HSS outcomes. However, there remains an ongoing need for research into how dual objective programmes are operationalised for optimum results.MethodsA qualitative study encompassing four grantee programmes from two partner countries, Tanzania and Sierra Leone, in the Comic Relief and GlaxoSmithKline ‘Fighting Malaria, Improving Health’ partnership. Purposive sampling maximised variation in terms of geographical location, programme aims and activities, grantee type and operational sector. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews. Data analysis was informed by a general inductive approach.Results51 interviews were conducted across the four grantees. Grantee organisations structured and operated their respective projects in a manner generally supportive of HSS objectives. This was revealed through commonalities identified across the four grantee organisations in terms of their respective approach to achieving their HSS objectives, and experienced tensions in pursuit of these objectives. Commonalities included: (1) using short-term funding for long-term initiatives; (2) benefits of being embedded in the local health system; (3) donor flexibility to enable grantee responsiveness; (4) the need for modest expectations; and (5) the importance of micro-innovation.ConclusionHealth systems strengthening may be pursued through disease-specific programme grants; however, the respective practice of both the funder and grantee organisation appears to be a key influence on whether HSS will be realised as well as the overall extent of HSS possible.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. e047165
Author(s):  
Campbell Stuart Johnston ◽  
Erika Belanger ◽  
Krystal Wong ◽  
David Snadden

ObjectivesThe objectives of the Rural Site Visit Project (SV Project) were to develop a successful model for engaging all 201 communities in rural British Columbia, Canada, build relationships and gather data about community healthcare issues to help modify existing rural healthcare programs and inform government rural healthcare policy.DesignAn adapted version of Boelen’s health partnership model was used to identify each community’s Health Care Partners: health providers, academics, policy makers, health managers, community representatives and linked sectors. Qualitative data were gathered using a semistructured interview guide. Major themes were identified through content analysis, and this information was fed back to government and interviewees in reports every 6 months.SettingThe 107 communities visited thus far have healthcare services that range from hospitals with surgical programs to remote communities with no medical services at all. The majority have access to local primary care.ParticipantsParticipants were recruited from the Health Care Partner groups identified above using purposeful and snowball sampling.Primary and secondary outcome measuresA successful process was developed to engage rural communities in identifying their healthcare priorities, while simultaneously building and strengthening relationships. The qualitative data were analysed from 185 meetings in 80 communities and shared with policy makers at governmental and community levels.Results36 themes have been identified and three overarching themes that interconnect all the interviews, namely Relationships, Autonomy and Change Over Time, are discussed.ConclusionThe SV Project appears to be unique in that it is physician led, prioritises relationships, engages all of the healthcare partners singly and jointly in each community, is ongoing, provides feedback to both the policy makers and all interviewees on a 6-monthly basis and, by virtue of its large scope, has the ability to produce interim reports that have helped inform system change.


Author(s):  
Ezgi Seager ◽  
Rowena Mills ◽  
Anna Tailby ◽  
Andy Pearce ◽  
Bethany Chevill ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Anna Tailby ◽  
Andrew Pearce ◽  
Beth Chevil ◽  
Amanda Goldstein ◽  
Sophie Hamnett ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Bethany Chevill ◽  
Anna Tailby ◽  
Sophie Hamnett ◽  
Andrew Pearce ◽  
Rowena Mills ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document