Cargando…

A multiple case study of intersectoral public health networks: experiences and benefits of using research

BACKGROUND: Network partnerships between public health and third sector organisations are being used to address the complexities of population level social determinants of health and health equity. An understanding of how these networks use research and knowledge is crucial to effective network desi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kothari, Anita, McPherson, Charmaine, Gore, Dana, Cohen, Benita, MacDonald, Marjorie, Sibbald, Shannon L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4750196/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26865251
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0082-7
_version_ 1782415395295068160
author Kothari, Anita
McPherson, Charmaine
Gore, Dana
Cohen, Benita
MacDonald, Marjorie
Sibbald, Shannon L.
author_facet Kothari, Anita
McPherson, Charmaine
Gore, Dana
Cohen, Benita
MacDonald, Marjorie
Sibbald, Shannon L.
author_sort Kothari, Anita
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Network partnerships between public health and third sector organisations are being used to address the complexities of population level social determinants of health and health equity. An understanding of how these networks use research and knowledge is crucial to effective network design and outcome evaluation. There is, however, a gap in the literature regarding how public health networks use research and knowledge. The purpose of this paper is to report on the qualitative findings from a larger study that explored (1) the experiences of public health networks with using research and knowledge, and (2) the perceived benefits of using research and knowledge. METHODS: A multiple case study approach framed this study. Focus group data were collected from participants through a purposive sample of four public health networks. Data were analyzed using Framework Analysis and Nvivo™ software supported data management. Each network had the opportunity to participate in data interpretation. RESULTS: All networks used published research studies and other types of knowledge to accomplish their work, although in each network research and knowledge played different but complementary roles. Neither research nor other types of knowledge were privileged, and an approach that blended varied knowledge types was typically used. Network experiences with research and knowledge produced individual and collective benefits. A novel finding was that research and knowledge were both important in shaping network function. CONCLUSIONS: This study shifts the focus in the current literature from public health departments to the community setting where public health collaborates with a broader spectrum of actors to ameliorate health inequities. Both formal research and informal knowledge were found to be important for collaborative public health networks. Examining the benefits of research and knowledge use within public health networks may help us to better understand the relationships among process (the collaborative use of research and knowledge), structure (networks) and outcomes (benefits).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4750196
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47501962016-02-12 A multiple case study of intersectoral public health networks: experiences and benefits of using research Kothari, Anita McPherson, Charmaine Gore, Dana Cohen, Benita MacDonald, Marjorie Sibbald, Shannon L. Health Res Policy Syst Research BACKGROUND: Network partnerships between public health and third sector organisations are being used to address the complexities of population level social determinants of health and health equity. An understanding of how these networks use research and knowledge is crucial to effective network design and outcome evaluation. There is, however, a gap in the literature regarding how public health networks use research and knowledge. The purpose of this paper is to report on the qualitative findings from a larger study that explored (1) the experiences of public health networks with using research and knowledge, and (2) the perceived benefits of using research and knowledge. METHODS: A multiple case study approach framed this study. Focus group data were collected from participants through a purposive sample of four public health networks. Data were analyzed using Framework Analysis and Nvivo™ software supported data management. Each network had the opportunity to participate in data interpretation. RESULTS: All networks used published research studies and other types of knowledge to accomplish their work, although in each network research and knowledge played different but complementary roles. Neither research nor other types of knowledge were privileged, and an approach that blended varied knowledge types was typically used. Network experiences with research and knowledge produced individual and collective benefits. A novel finding was that research and knowledge were both important in shaping network function. CONCLUSIONS: This study shifts the focus in the current literature from public health departments to the community setting where public health collaborates with a broader spectrum of actors to ameliorate health inequities. Both formal research and informal knowledge were found to be important for collaborative public health networks. Examining the benefits of research and knowledge use within public health networks may help us to better understand the relationships among process (the collaborative use of research and knowledge), structure (networks) and outcomes (benefits). BioMed Central 2016-02-11 /pmc/articles/PMC4750196/ /pubmed/26865251 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0082-7 Text en © Kothari et al. 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Kothari, Anita
McPherson, Charmaine
Gore, Dana
Cohen, Benita
MacDonald, Marjorie
Sibbald, Shannon L.
A multiple case study of intersectoral public health networks: experiences and benefits of using research
title A multiple case study of intersectoral public health networks: experiences and benefits of using research
title_full A multiple case study of intersectoral public health networks: experiences and benefits of using research
title_fullStr A multiple case study of intersectoral public health networks: experiences and benefits of using research
title_full_unstemmed A multiple case study of intersectoral public health networks: experiences and benefits of using research
title_short A multiple case study of intersectoral public health networks: experiences and benefits of using research
title_sort multiple case study of intersectoral public health networks: experiences and benefits of using research
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4750196/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26865251
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0082-7
work_keys_str_mv AT kotharianita amultiplecasestudyofintersectoralpublichealthnetworksexperiencesandbenefitsofusingresearch
AT mcphersoncharmaine amultiplecasestudyofintersectoralpublichealthnetworksexperiencesandbenefitsofusingresearch
AT goredana amultiplecasestudyofintersectoralpublichealthnetworksexperiencesandbenefitsofusingresearch
AT cohenbenita amultiplecasestudyofintersectoralpublichealthnetworksexperiencesandbenefitsofusingresearch
AT macdonaldmarjorie amultiplecasestudyofintersectoralpublichealthnetworksexperiencesandbenefitsofusingresearch
AT sibbaldshannonl amultiplecasestudyofintersectoralpublichealthnetworksexperiencesandbenefitsofusingresearch
AT kotharianita multiplecasestudyofintersectoralpublichealthnetworksexperiencesandbenefitsofusingresearch
AT mcphersoncharmaine multiplecasestudyofintersectoralpublichealthnetworksexperiencesandbenefitsofusingresearch
AT goredana multiplecasestudyofintersectoralpublichealthnetworksexperiencesandbenefitsofusingresearch
AT cohenbenita multiplecasestudyofintersectoralpublichealthnetworksexperiencesandbenefitsofusingresearch
AT macdonaldmarjorie multiplecasestudyofintersectoralpublichealthnetworksexperiencesandbenefitsofusingresearch
AT sibbaldshannonl multiplecasestudyofintersectoralpublichealthnetworksexperiencesandbenefitsofusingresearch