↓ Skip to main content

Collaboration between local health and local government agencies for health improvement

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
18 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
421 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Collaboration between local health and local government agencies for health improvement
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007825.pub6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sara L Hayes, Mala K Mann, Fiona M Morgan, Mark J Kelly, Alison L Weightman

Abstract

In many countries, national, regional and local inter- and intra-agency collaborations have been introduced to improve health outcomes. Evidence is needed on the effectiveness of locally developed partnerships which target changes in health outcomes and behaviours. To evaluate the effects of interagency collaboration between local health and local government agencies on health outcomes in any population or age group. We searched the Cochrane Public Health Group Specialised Register, AMED, ASSIA, CENTRAL, CINAHL, DoPHER, EMBASE, ERIC, HMIC, IBSS, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, OpenGrey, PsycINFO, Rehabdata, Social Care Online, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, TRoPHI and Web of Science from 1966 through to January 2012. 'Snowballing' methods were used, including expert contact, citation tracking, website searching and reference list follow-up. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series (ITS) where the study reported individual health outcomes arising from interagency collaboration between health and local government agencies compared to standard care. Studies were selected independently in duplicate, with no restriction on population subgroup or disease. Two authors independently conducted data extraction and assessed risk of bias for each study. Sixteen studies were identified (28,212 participants). Only two were considered to be at low risk of bias. Eleven studies contributed data to the meta-analyses but a narrative synthesis was undertaken for all 16 studies. Six studies examined mental health initiatives, of which one showed health benefit, four showed modest improvement in one or more of the outcomes measured but no clear overall health gain, and one showed no evidence of health gain. Four studies considered lifestyle improvements, of which one showed some limited short-term improvements, two failed to show health gains for the intervention population, and one showed more unhealthy lifestyle behaviours persisting in the intervention population. Three studies considered chronic disease management and all failed to demonstrate health gains. Three studies considered environmental improvements and adjustments, of which two showed some health improvements and one did not.Meta-analysis of three studies exploring the effect of collaboration on mortality showed no effect (pooled relative risk of 1.04 in favour of control, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.17). Analysis of five studies (with high heterogeneity) looking at the effect of collaboration on mental health resulted in a standardised mean difference of -0.28, a small effect favouring the intervention (95% CI -0.51 to -0.06). From two studies, there was a statistically significant but clinically modest improvement in the global assessment of function symptoms score scale, with a pooled mean difference (on a scale of 1 to 100) of -2.63 favouring the intervention (95% CI -5.16 to -0.10).For physical health (6 studies) and quality of life (4 studies) the results were not statistically significant, the standardised mean differences were -0.01 (95% CI -0.10 to 0.07) and -0.08 (95% CI -0.44 to 0.27), respectively. Collaboration between local health and local government is commonly considered best practice. However, the review did not identify any reliable evidence that interagency collaboration, compared to standard services, necessarily leads to health improvement. A few studies identified component benefits but these were not reflected in overall outcome scores and could have resulted from the use of significant additional resources. Although agencies appear enthusiastic about collaboration, difficulties in the primary studies and incomplete implementation of initiatives have prevented the development of a strong evidence base. If these weaknesses are addressed in future studies (for example by providing greater detail on the implementation of programmes; using more robust designs, integrated process evaluations to show how well the partners of the collaboration worked together, and measurement of health outcomes) it could provide a better understanding of what might work and why. It is possible that local collaborative partnerships delivering environmental Interventions may result in health gain but the evidence base for this is very limited.Evaluations of interagency collaborative arrangements face many challenges. The results demonstrate that collaborative community partnerships can be established to deliver interventions but it is important to agree goals, methods of working, monitoring and evaluation before implementation to protect programme fidelity and increase the potential for effectiveness.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 421 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 5 1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Papua New Guinea 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 406 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 92 22%
Researcher 58 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 53 13%
Student > Bachelor 44 10%
Student > Postgraduate 29 7%
Other 71 17%
Unknown 74 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 124 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 66 16%
Social Sciences 51 12%
Psychology 36 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 12 3%
Other 51 12%
Unknown 81 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 May 2020.
All research outputs
#943,535
of 15,248,333 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,725
of 11,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,247
of 148,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#18
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,248,333 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,164 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 148,863 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.