Search results

The purpose of this paper is to consider the effectiveness of partnership working in public health and draws on a systematic review of public health partnerships and original research conducted by the authors. It then considers in the light of research evidence whether the recently established Health and Wellbeing Boards (HWBs) under the 2012 Health and Social Care Act will help agencies to work together more effectively to improve population health or will go the way of previous initiatives and fall short of their original promise.

The paper is based on a systematic literature review conducted by the authors and empirical research focusing upon the ability of public health partnerships to reduce health inequalities and improve population health outcomes. It also draws on recent studies evaluating HWBs.

The paper finds that, hitherto, public health partnerships have had limited impact on improving population health and reducing health inequalities and that there is a danger that HWBs will follow the same path-dependent manner of previous partnership initiatives with limited impact in improving population health outcomes and reducing health inequalities.

The research draws on a systematic literature review and further scoping review of public health partnerships, in addition to empirical research conducted by the authors. It also reviews the current evidence base on HWBs. It is recognised that HWBs are in their early stages and have not as yet had the time to fulfil their role in service collaboration and integration.

The paper gives an overview of how and why public health partnerships in the past have not lived up to the expectations placed upon them. It then offers practical steps that HWBs need to take to take to ensure the mistakes of the past are not replicated in the future.

The research outlines how public health partnerships can operate in a more effective manner, to ensure a more seamless provision for service users. The paper then gives pointers as to how this can benefit HWBs and the wider community they serve.

The paper draws on a comprehensive research study of the effectiveness of public health partnerships on improving health outcomes and a systematic literature review. In addition, it also draws upon the current evidence base evaluating HWBs, to inform the discussion on their future prospects, in regard to partnership working in public health and promoting service integration.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the findings of this special issue and discusses the future challenges for policy, research and society. The findings suggest that challenges emerge as a result of legitimacy deficits of both consensus and contestatory modes of public involvement in health priority setting.

The paper draws on the discussions and findings presented in this special issue. It seeks to bring the country experiences and case studies together to draw conclusions for policy, research and society.

At least two recurring themes emerge. An underlying theme is the importance, but also the challenge, of establishing legitimacy in health priority setting. The country experiences suggest that we understand very little about the conditions under which representative, or authentic, participation generates legitimacy and under which it will be regarded as insufficient. A second observation is that public participation takes a variety of forms that depend on the opportunity structures in a given national context. Given this variety the conceptualization of public participation needs to be expanded to account for the many forms of public participation.

The paper concludes that the challenges of public involvement are closely linked to the question of how legitimate processes and decisions can be generated in priority setting. This suggests that future research must focus more narrowly on conditions under which legitimacy are generated in order to expand the understanding of public involvement in health prioritization.

A recently published survey found that slightly over 14 million persons age 16 or over hunted in the United States in 1991 and spent over $12 billion on hunting. By comparison, the same survey determined there are over 35 million anglers. Another source estimates that nearly 18 million participants age seven and older hunted with firearms in 1992. That ranks hunting well below the participatory sports of swimming, bicycling, and bowling in popularity, but ahead of football, skiing, tennis, and target shooting. Estimates vary, and while these numbers are substantial, they indicate that hunters comprise well under ten percent of the total U.S. population. Hunters have come under increasing fire from animal rightists and others who claim the sport is cruel and unnecessary. Hundreds of articles and a number of books have been written in recent years on both sides of the issue, or, more accurately, all sides. Many writers as well as the population at large see hunting as not entirely “good” or “bad” but some of each, depending upon the context.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.