Collaborating in a penta-helix structure within a community based participatory research programme: ‘Wrestling with hierarchies and getting caught in isolated downpipes’
Tóm tắt
In the light of the existence of social inequalities in health, a CBPR (Community Based Participatory Research) programme for health promotion started in Malmö, Sweden, in 2017. The programme was based on a penta-helix structure and involved a strategic steering group with representatives from academia, voluntary organisations, the business sector, the public sector, and citizens from the community where the programme took place. The aim of this study was to explore how the penta-helix collaboration worked from the perspectives of all partners, including the citizens. Individual interviews, that were based on a guide for self-reflection and evaluation of CBPR partnerships, were conducted with the representatives (N = 13) on three occasions, during the period 2017–2019. A qualitative content analysis was used to analyse the interviews. Six themes emerged from the analysis, including Challenges for the partners in the penta-helix collaboration; Challenges for the professionals at the local level; Citizen-driven processes are important for the penta-helix collaboration; Health promoters are essential to build trust between different sectors of society; Shift of power; and System changes take time. The analysis shows that the penta-helix collaboration worked well at the local level in a governance-related model for penta-helix cooperation. In the overall cooperation it was the citizen-driven processes that made the programme work. However, the findings also indicated an inflexibility in organisations with hierarchical structures that created barriers for citizen involvement in the penta-helix collaboration. The main issue uncovered in this study is the problem of vertically organised institutions where discovery and innovation processes flow down from the top, thereby eliminating the essential input of the people and community that they are supposed to serve. The success of the programme was based on an interprofessional cooperation at a local level, where local professions worked together with voluntary organisations, social workers, CBPR researchers from the university, citizens and local health promoters.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Marmot M. Social determinants of health inequalities. Lancet. 2005;365:1099–104.
Wallerstein N. Powerlessness, empowerment and health: implications for health promotion programs. Behav Chang. 1992;6(3):197–205.
WHO. Multisectoral and intersectoral action for improved health and well-being for all: mapping of the WHO European Region. Governance for a sustainable future: improving health and well-being for all. Final Report. 2018. https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/371435/multisectoral-report-h1720-eng.pdf. Accessed 23 Feb 2021.
WHO. (2014). WHO | Health in All Policies: Framework for Country Action. https://www.who.int/cardiovascular_diseases/140120HPRHiAPFramework.pdf. (Accessed September 14, 2020).
WHO. (2013). The Helsinki Statement on Health in All Policies, pp. i17–i18. https://www.who.int/healthpromotion/conferences/8gchp/8gchp_helsinki_statement.pdf (Accessed September 14, 2020).
Jackson SF, Perkins F, Khandor E, Cordwell L, Hamann S, Buasai S. Integrated health promotion strategies: a contribution to tackling current and future health challenges. Health Promot Int. 2006;21:75–83.
Corbin JH, Mittelmark MB. Partnership lessons from the global programme for health promotion effectiveness: a case study. Health Promot Int. 2008;23:365–71.
Corbin JH, Jones J, Barry MM. What makes intersectoral partnerships for health promotion work? A review of the international literature. Health Promotion Int. 2018;33:4–26.
Gillies P. Effectiveness of alliances and partnerships for health. Health Promot Int. 1998;13:99–120.
Abma TA, Cook T, Rämgård M, Kleba E, Harris J, Wallerstein N. Social impact of participatory health research: collaborative non-linear processes of knowledge mobilization. Educ Action Res. 2017;25(4):489–505.
Holkup PA, Tripp-Reimer T, Salois EM, Weinert S. Community-based participatory research: an approach to intervention research with a native American community. Adv Nurse Sci. 2004;27(3):162–75.
Wallerstein N, Duran B, Oetzel J, Minkler M. Community based participatory research for health: advancing social and health equity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2018.
Lewin K. Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper; 1948.
Freire P. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder; 1970.
Lindacher V, Curbach J, Warrelmann B, Bransetter S, Loss J. Evaluation of empowerment in health promotion interventions a systematic review. Eval Health Prof. 2017;41(3):351–92.
Belone L, Lucero JE, Duran B, Tafoya G, Baker EA, Chan D, Chang C, Greene-Moton E, Kelley MA, Wallerstein N. Community-based participatory research conceptual model: community partner consultation and face validity. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(1):117–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732314557084.
Ramji R, Carlson E, Brogårdh-Roth S, Nilvéus Olofsson A, Kottorp A, Rämgård M. Understanding behavioural changes through community-based participatory research to promote oral health in socially disadvantaged neighbourhoods in southern Sweden. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e035732. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035732.
Malmö stad. (2019). https://malmo.se/Fakta-och-statistik/Statistik-for-Malmos-omraden.html. (Accessed September 14, 2020).
Israel BA, Schutz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19:173–202.
Axelsson R, Bahari Axelsson S. From territoriality to altruism in interprofessional collaboration and leadership. J Interprof Care. 2009;23:320–30.
Ramji R, Carlson E, Kottorp A, Shleey S, Awad E, Rämgård M. Development and evaluation of physical activity intervention informed by participatory research – a feasibility study. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):112.
Renblad K, Henning C, Jegermalm M. Future Workshop as a Method for Societally Motivated Research and Social Planning. In: Henning C, Renblad K. Perspectives on empowerment, social cohesion and democracy: an international anthology. Jönköping: School of Health Sciences, Jönköping University; 2009.
Wallerstein, N. (2017). Partnership Interview Guide; Qualitative Study Instrument, 2011 (adapted 2015), University of New Mexico Center for Participatory Research. From ‘Research for Improved Health: A National Study of Community-Academic Partnerships’ (2009–2013). Interview Guide for Self-Reflection and Evaluation of CBPR Partnerships: Version 2017. Adapted from Research for Improved Health: A study of Community-Academic Partnerships. https://cpr.unm.edu/research-projects/cbpr-project/index.html (Accessed September 14, 2020).
Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62(1):107–15.
Ortiz LM. Multicultural health brokering: bridging cultures to achieve equity of access to health (Doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta); 2003.
Svanholm S, Carleby H, Viitasara E. Collaboration in health promotion for newly arrived migrants in Sweden. PLoS One. 2020;15(5):e0233659. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233659.
Mendes R, Plaza V, Wallerstein N. Sustainability and power in health promotion: community-based participatory research in a reproductive health policy case study in New Mexico. Global Health Promot. 2014;23(1):61–74.
Bodkin A, Hakimi S. Sustainable by design: a systematic review of factors for health promotion program sustainability. BMC Public Health. 2020;20:964 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09091-9.
Flynn BC, Wiles Ray D, Rider MS. Empowering communities: action research through healthy cities. Health Educ Q. 1994;21(3):395–405.
Laverack G. Health promotion practice: power and empowerment. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2004.
Freudenberg N, Tsui E. Evidence, power, and policy change in community-based participatory research. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(1):11–4. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301471 Epub 2013 Nov 14. PMID: 24228677; PMCID: PMC3910045.