It’s hard to play ball: A qualitative study of knowledge exchange and silo effects in public health
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 2 January 2018
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in BMC Health Services Research
- Vol. 18 (1), 1-11
- https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2770-6
Abstract
Partnerships in public health form an important component of commissioning and implementing services, in England and internationally. In this research, we examine the views of staff involved in a City-wide health improvement programme which ran from 2009 to 2013 in England. We examine the practicalities of partnership work in community settings, and we describe some of barriers faced when implementing a large, multi-organisation health improvement programme. Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were performed. Purposive sampling was used to identify potential participants in the programme: programme board of directors, programme and project managers and intervention managers. Interviews were conducted one-to-one. We conducted a thematic analysis using the ‘one sheet of paper’ technique. This involved analysing data deductively, moving from initial to axial coding, developing categories and then identifying emerging themes. Fifteen interviews were completed. Three themes were identified. The first theme reflects how poor communication approaches hindered the ability of partnerships to deliver their aims and objectives in a range of ways and for a range of reasons. Our second theme reflects how a lack of appropriate knowledge exchange hindered decision-making, affected trust and contributed to protectionist approaches to working. This lack of shared, and communicated, understanding of what type of knowledge is most appropriate and in which circumstance made meaningful knowledge exchange challenging for decision-making and partnership-working in the City-wide health improvement programme. Theme three demonstrates how perceptions about silos in partnership-working could be problematic, but silos themselves were at times beneficial to partnerships. This revealed a mismatch between rhetoric and a realistic understanding of what components of the programme were functional and which were more hindrance than help. There were high expectations placed on the concept of what partnership work was, or how it should be done. We found our themes to be interdependent, and reflective of the ‘dynamic fluid process’ discussed within the knowledge mobilisation literature. We contend that reframing normal and embedded processes of silos and silo-working already in use might ease resistance to some knowledge exchange processes and contribute to better long-term functioning of public health partnerships.Keywords
Funding Information
- National Institute for Health Research
This publication has 28 references indexed in Scilit:
- Silos and Social Identity: The Social Identity Approach as a Framework for Understanding and Overcoming Divisions in Health CareThe Milbank Quarterly, 2012
- A Systematic Review of Collaboration and Network Research in the Public Affairs Literature: Implications for Public Health Practice and ResearchAmerican Journal of Public Health, 2012
- Barriers to Partnership Working in Public Health: A Qualitative StudyPLOS ONE, 2012
- A typology of practice narratives during the implementation of a preventive, community intervention trialImplementation Science, 2009
- Knowledge brokering: the missing link in the evidence to action chain?Evidence & Policy, 2009
- Mapping new theoretical and methodological terrain for knowledge translation: contributions from critical realism and the artsImplementation Science, 2009
- Building and Maintaining Trust in a Community-Based Participatory Research PartnershipAmerican Journal of Public Health, 2008
- The strategic drivers and objectives of communities of practice as vehicles for knowledge management in small and medium enterprisesInternational Journal of Information Management, 2008
- Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map?Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 2006
- Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework.American Journal of Public Health, 1999