Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Nov 26;24(1):1470.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-11944-7.

Vital lessons from struggling partnerships and potential partnerships: an international study with leaders across the health sector

Affiliations

Vital lessons from struggling partnerships and potential partnerships: an international study with leaders across the health sector

Greg Zwisler et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: Inter-organizational partnerships and collaborations, used here interchangeably, have growing prominence across the health sector. Successful partnerships have received extensive study. However, especially for partnerships including nonprofit partners, limited attention has been given to negative factors that contribute to struggling partnerships, including failed partnerships, and/or impede potential partnerships, including unexplored and undeveloped potential partnerships. This study aimed to explore these across diverse examples of struggling and potential partnerships considered otherwise worthwhile in principle, according to leaders and managers-in 13 countries across Asia-Pacific, EU+, North America-from diverse roles and settings across the health sector. It also aimed to explore success factors they said contributed to successful partnerships.

Methods: Interviews were conducted with 70 practitioners in 13 countries and a wide range of roles and nonprofit, industry, and government settings, including research institutions, across the health sector. Interviews covered their examples of struggling, potential, and successful partnerships; and, factors. Interview data were analyzed inductively, employing thematic network analysis. Comments underlying themes were reviewed regarding the participants concerned to note range (e.g., regions).

Results: Key findings included: (1) the many negative factors and success factors identified as themes; (2) their occurrence across diverse contexts, including different regions and institutional sectors (i.e., nonprofit, industry, government); (3) the complementarity of negative factors and success factors, with each set placing different emphasis on certain topics and negative factors both broadening the overall range of topics and contributing more to literature; (4) the occurrence of most negative factors with both struggling and potential partnerships. The 255 partnerships and potential partnerships discussed included nonprofit (190/255), industry (112/255), and/or government (140/255) partners. Many spanned two different institutional sectors (147/255); 86/255 spanned one; 20/255 spanned three.

Conclusions: The findings suggest three takeaways for practitioners: (1) factors used to consider partnerships should reflect factors from struggling partnerships and/or potential partnerships, plus successful partnerships; (2) negative factors can highlight opportunities to advance partnerships, individually and systematically; (3) practitioners should consider developing frameworks of factors from literature and experience to facilitate judicious consideration of partnerships and inform approaches, lessons drawn, and potential partnerships sought. Struggling and potential partnerships merit scholarly attention.

Keywords: Barriers and facilitators; Design; Health policy; Integrated care; Interorganizational collaboration; Intersectoral collaboration; OECD countries; Patient involvement; Population health; Product development.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: The Seattle University institutional review board (IRB) found this study exempt from the need for IRB review (letter dated February 2, 2017). All methods in this study were carried out in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki. Interviews were voluntary and confidential. Informed consent was obtained verbally at the start of each interview. With participants’ verbal consent, interviews conducted were audio-recorded for transcription or, on request, detailed notes were taken and no audio recorded. Participant information and quotes have been disguised and anonymized. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Similar articles

References

    1. Ned-Sykes SGK, Salerno R, Pentella RMA. Advancing the public health laboratory system through partnerships. Public Health Rep. 2019;134:3S-5S. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Alderwick H, Hutchings A, Briggs A, Mays N. The impacts of collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations and factors shaping how they work: a systematic review of reviews. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):753. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Broes S, Saesen R, Lacombe D, Huys I. Past, current, and future cancer clinical research collaborations: the case of the European Organisation for research and treatment of cancer. Clin Transl Sci. 2021;14:47–53. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Auschra C. Barriers to the integration of care in inter-organisational settings: a literature review. Int J Integr Care. 2018;18:5. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Barnett J, Vasileiou K, Djemil F, Brooks L, Young T. Understanding innovators’ experiences of barriers and facilitators in implementation and diffusion of healthcare service innovations: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:342. - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources