Partnership working has been a key tenet of health policy in Scotland since 1997. Much has been written about the benefits of partnership working, but it has been difficult to prove its effectiveness. This paper describes the reality of working in partnership when undertaking an evaluation of a complex intervention aimed at engaging with hard-to-reach men to improve their health.
Methods:
A collaborative model of working was used to develop an evaluation tool to assess the effectiveness of the intervention. Six phases were used in the developmental process each involving a different group of stakeholders. The progress through these phases was not linear; it involved numerous iterative feedback loops. A number of challenges were faced at each phase and steps were taken to overcome them.
Results:
Four lessons emerged which are more generally applicable. Collaborative working is a slow process, a fact which key advocates in the field have failed to recognise. Study participants need to be included in partnership working, particularly men. Partnership working can be arduous and those undertaking it should be prepared for the difficulties ahead since the key to success is being able to overcome these challenges. Flexibility is a key element to the successful evaluation of community-based large scale interventions.
Conclusion:
This research identified that it is important to be flexible to meeting the changing needs of stakeholders involved in the evaluative process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
The Scottish Office: Department of Health. Designed to Care: Renewing the National Health Service in Scotland. Cm 3811. London: The Stationary Office; 1997. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library/documents1/care-00.htm.
NHS Scotland. Partnership: Delivering the Future. Taking Stock of Partnership Working Report by the Project Steering Group. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive; 2005. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/77843/0018751.pdf.
5.
WildridgeV., ChildsS., CawthraL., MadgeB.How to create successful partnerships – a review of the literature. Health Info Libr J, 2004; 21(Suppl 1):3–19.
6.
IsraelB.A., SchulzA.J., ParkerE.A., BeckerA.B.Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health, 1998; 19:173–202.
7.
HassanL., SpencerJ., HogardE.Managing Sure Start in partnership. Community Pract, 2006; 79(8):247–251.
8.
RattrayJ.E., PaulF., TullyV.Partnership working between a higher education institution and NHS TRUSTS: developing an acute and critical care module. Nurs Crit Care, 2006; 11(3):111–117.
9.
KeatingL., CarterH., DarwentM., BatemanS., MackayD.M., PullingerR.Partnership working in the production of clinical guidelines. Health Info Libr J, 2004; 21(Suppl 1):46–51.
10.
El AnsariW., PhillipsC.J., HammickM.Collaboration and partnerships: developing the evidence base. Health Soc Care Community, 2001; 9(4):215–227.
11.
RichardsonA., SitziaJ., CotterellP.‘Working the system’. Achieving change through partnership working: an evaluation of cancer partnership groups. Health Expect, 2005; 8(3):210–220.
ParryO., GnichW., PlattS.Principles in practice: reflections on a ‘postpositivist’ approach to evaluation research. Health Educ Res, 2001; 16(2):215–226.
14.
AsthanaS., RichardsonS., HallidayJ.Partnership working in public policy provision: a framework for evaluation. Soc Pol Admin, 2002; 36(7):780–795.
15.
WillsJ., EllisonG.T.Integrating services for public health: challenges facing multidisciplinary partnership working. Public Health, 2007; 121(7):546–548.
SpringettJ.Appropriate approaches to the evaluation of health promotion. Crit Public Health, 2001; 11(2):139–151.
18.
StufflebeamD.L., MadausG.F., KellaghanT. editors. Evaluation Models. Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation. 2nd edition. Boston, Dordrecht, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2000.
19.
PattonM.Q.Utilization-focused Evaluation: The New Century Text. 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1997.
20.
BidmeadC., CowleyS.Evaluating family partnership training in health visitor practice. Community Pract, 2005; 78(7):239–245.
21.
FreemanT., PeckE.Evaluating partnerships: a case study of integrated specialist mental health services. Health Soc Care Community, 2006; 14(5):408–417.
22.
Scottish Executive. Evaluation of the Well Men Services Pilots Research Specification. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive; 2004.
23.
ShahP., MountainD.The medical model is dead – long live the medical model. Br J Psychiatry, 2007; 191:375–377.
24.
BurtonR., MacDonaldG. editors. Health Promotion: Disciplines, Diversity and Developments. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group; 2002.
25.
van TeijlingenE.A critical analysis of the medical model as used in the study of pregnancy and childbirth. Sociol Res Online, 2005; 10(2):1–21.
26.
CraddockC., ReidM.Structure and struggle: implementing a social model of a well woman clinic in Glasgow. Soc Sci Med, 1993; 36(1):67–76.
27.
LeishmanJ., DalzielA.Taking action to improve the health of Scottish men. Men's Health J, 2003; 2(3):90–93.
DouglasF., van TeijlingenE., BrindleS., HundleyV., BruceJ., TorranceN.Designing questionnaires for midwifery research. RCM Midwives, 2005; 8(5):212–215.
31.
DouglasF., TorranceN., van TeijlingenE., MeloniS., KerrA.Primary care staff's views and experiences related to routinely advising patients about physical activity. A questionnaire survey. BMC Public Health, 2006; 6:138.
32.
BowlingA.Measuring Health: A Review of Quality of Life Measurement Scales. Milton Keynes: Open University Press; 1991.
33.
de VausD.A.Surveys In Social Research. London: University College London; 1998.
34.
CleopasA., KollyV., PernegerT.V.Longer response scales improved the acceptability and performance of the Nottingham Health Profile. J Clin Epidemiol, 2006; 59(11):1183–1190.
35.
MidgleyG.Systemic intervention for public health. Am J Public Health, 2006; 96(3):466–472.
36.
ChoiB.C., PakA.W.A catalog of biases in questionnaires. Prev Chronic Dis, 2005; 2(1):A13.
GubaE.G., LincolnY.S.Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications; 1989.
41.
DunetD.O., ReyesM.Stakeholder-focused evaluation of an online course for health care providers. J Contin Educ Health Prof, 2006; 26(4):257–267.
42.
HarperG.W., BangiA.K., ContrerasR., PedrazaA., TolliverM., VessL.Diverse phases of collaboration: working together to improve community-based HIV interventions for adolescents. Am J Community Psychol, 2004; 33(3–4):193–204.
43.
WadsworthY.Everyday evaluation on the run. 2nd edition. New South Wales, Australia: Allen & Unwin; 1997.
44.
Office of National Statistics. GP Consultations, 2006. London: General Household Survey, Office for National Statistics; 2006. Available at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1109 [Accessed June1, 2008].
45.
BanksI.No man's land: men, illness and the NHS. BMJ, 2001; 323:1058–1060.
46.
DoyalL.Sex, gender, and health: the need for a new approach. BMJ, 2001; 323(7320):1061–1063.
47.
EvansD., KilloranA.Tackling health inequalities through partnership working: learning from a realistic evaluation. Crit Public Health, 2000; 10(2):125–140.
48.
DewarB.J.Beyond tokenistic involvement of older people in research – a framework for future development and understanding. J Clin Nurs, 2005; 14(Suppl 1):48–53.
