Intersectoral health promotion (IHP) has pushed health professions to engage in new tasks and interprofessional ways of working. We studied how care assistants from a nursing home and school teachers implemented a cookery project targeted at children (“Cool Beans”) as an example of an IHP project in Denmark. Our aim was to examine the impact of the IHP project on the practices of the professions involved. We used a qualitative case study to investigate joint care and teaching situations with the two professions and their users. Our data consisted of documents, participatory observations, and informal interviews (17 hours) as well as semistructured interviews with professionals (n = 4). We used a sociological institutional framework to analyze the professional practices emerging in joint care and teaching situations and identified three themes of new professional activities: (1) “interplay” related to making different generations collaborate on the tasks involved in the cookery session; (2) “care” concerned with caregiving activities; and (3) “learning” focused on schooling on healthy food and cooking. We conclude that changes in professional practices occurred informally and were induced by the concrete activities in the cookery project. The specific, practical tasks of the IHP project thus offered an important leverage for future interprofessional collaborations.
AbmaT. A.StakeR. E. (2014). Science of the particular: An advocacy of naturalistic case study in health research. Qualitative Health Research, 24, 1150-1161.
2.
BurauV.CarstensenK.LouS.KuhlmannE. (2017). Professional groups driving change toward patient-centred care: Interprofessional working in stroke rehabilitation in Denmark. BMC Health Services Research, 17, 662.
3.
CockerhamW. C. (2005). Health lifestyle theory and the convergence of agency and structure. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 46, 51-67.
4.
CorbinJ. H.JonesJ.BarryM. B. (2018). What makes intersectoral partnerships for health promotion work? A review of the international literature. Health Promotion International, 33, 4-26.
5.
CzarniawskaB.JoergesB. (1996). Travels of ideas. In CzarniawskaB.SevónG. (Eds.), Translating organizational change (pp. 13-48). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
6.
CzarniawskaB.SevónG. (1996). Introduction. In CzarniawskaB.SevónG. (Eds.), Translating organizational change (pp. 1-12). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
DavoliG. W.FineL. J. (2004). Stacking the deck for success in interprofessional collaboration. Health Promotion Practice, 5, 266-270.
9.
DenisJ.LamotheL.LangleyA.ValetteA. (1999). The struggle to redefine boundaries in health care systems. In BrockD.PowellM.HiningsC. R. (Eds.), Restructuring the professional organization (pp. 105-130). London, England: Routledge.
10.
DentM.BourgeaultI. L.DenisJ.KuhlmannE. (2016). The changing world of professions and professionalism. In DentM.BourgeaultI. L.DenisJ.KuhlmannE. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to the professions and professionalism (pp. 1-10). New York, NY: Routledge.
11.
GeilK.SøndergaardD. E.RodM. H. (2016). Organisatoriske og politiske rammer for forebyggelsen i Danmark [Organizational and political frameworks for prevention in Denmark]. In JensenB. B.GrønbækM.ReventlowS. (Eds.), Forebyggende sundhedsarbejde [Preventive health work] (pp. 21-39). Copenhagen, Denmark: Munksgaard.
12.
HallP. (2005). Interprofessional teamwork: Professional cultures as barriers. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19(Supp1.), 188-196.
13.
HøjlundH. (2014). Det værdibaserede partnerskab: Et dansk samarbejdsprojekt om lokal sundhedsfremme [The value-based partnership: A Danish collaboration project in local health promotion]. Nordisk Administrativt Tidsskrift, 91(1), 27-43.
14.
HolsteinJ. A.GubriumJ. F. (2008). Constructionist impulses in ethnographic fieldwork. In HolsteinJ. A.GubriumJ. F. (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 373-395). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
15.
JeppersonR. L. (1991). Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. In PowellW. W.DiMaggioP. J. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 143-163). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
16.
JonesJ.BarryM. M. (2011). Exploring the relationship between synergy and partnership functioning factors in health promotion partnerships. Health Promotion International, 26, 408-420.
17.
KhareM. M.NunezA. E.JamesB. F. (2015). Coalition for a healthier community: Lessons learned and implications for future work. Evaluation and Program Planning, 51, 85-88.
18.
KnobenJ.OerlemansL. A. G. (2006). Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration: A literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8, 71-89.
LeddererL. (2008). Er det kvalitative multiple casestudie anvendeligt i sundhedstjenesteforskning? [Is qualitative multiple case study useful in health services research]. Tidsskrift for Sygeplejeforskning, 24, 44-50.
21.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
22.
MaxwellJ. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
McDaidD.ParkA. (2016). Evidence on financing and budgeting mechanisms to support intersectoral actions between health, education, social welfare and labour sectors (Health Evidence Network Synthesis Report No. 48). Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe.
MikkelsenB. E.TrolleE. (2004). Partnerships for better nutrition: An analysis of how Danish authorities, researchers, non-governmental organizations and practitioners are networking to promote healthy eating. Scandinavian Journal of Nutrition, 48, 61-69.
26.
RantalaR.BortzB.ArmadaF. (2014). Intersectoral action: Local governments promoting health. Health Promotion International, 29, i92-i102.
27.
ReevesS.PerrierL.GoldmanJ.FreethD.ZwarensteinM. (2013). Interprofessional education: Effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes (update). Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews, 3, CD002213.
28.
SahlinK.WedlinL. (2008). Circulating ideas: Imitation, translation and editing. In GreenwoodR.OliverC.SahlinK.SuddabyR. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 218-242). London, England: Sage.
29.
ScottW. R. (2008). Lords of the dance: Professionals as institutional agents. Organization Studies, 29, 219-238.
30.
ScottW. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests and identities (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
SeatonC. L.HolmN.BottorffJ. L.Jones-BrickerM.ErreyS.CaperchioneC. M.. . . HealyT. (2018). Factors that impact the success of interorganizational health promotion collaborations: A scoping review. American Journal of Health Promotion, 32, 1095-1109. doi:10.1177/0890117117710875
32.
SeemannJ.GustafssonJ. (2016). Integration in the spotlight: Fighting silo barriers and fragmented healthcare in Denmark. In GiarelliG.JacobsenB.NielsenM.ReinbacherG. S. (Eds.), Future challenges for health and healthcare in Europe (1st ed., pp. 49-70). Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg Univer-sitetsforlag.
33.
StakeR. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
SuiterS. V.DavidsonH. A.McCawM.FenelonK-F. (2015). Interprofessional education in community health contexts: Preparing a collaborative practice-ready workforce. Pedagogy in Health Promotion, 1, 37-46.
35.
TooherR.CollinsJ.Braunack-MayerA.BurgessT.SkinnerS. R.. . . MarshallH. S. (2016). Intersectoral collaboration to implement school-based health programmes: Australian perspectives. Health Promotion International, 32, 312-321.
