Primary Care and Public Health Collaboration Reports: A Qualitative Review of Integration Aims, Participants, and Success Determinants

Rapid evidence review: Policy actions for the integration of public health and health care in the United States

Objective

To identify policy actions that may improve the interface of public health and health care in the United States.

Methods

A rapid review of publicly-available documents informing the integration of public health and health care, and case examples reporting objective measures of success, with abstraction of policy actions, related considerations, and outcomes.

Results

Across 109 documents, there were a number of recurrent themes related to policy actions and considerations to facilitate integration during peace time and during public health emergencies. The themes could be grouped into the need for adequate and dedicated funding; mandates and shared governance for integration; joint leadership that has the authority/ability to mobilize shared assets; adequately staffed and skilled workforces in both sectors with mutual awareness of shared functions; shared health information systems with modernized data and IT capabilities for both data collection and dissemination of information; engagement with multiple stakeholders in the community to be maximally inclusive; and robust communication strategies and training across partners and with the public.

Conclusion

While the evidence does not support a hierarchy of policies on strengthening the interface of public health and health care, recurrent policy themes can inform where to focus efforts.

Correlation between input on public health services and work motivation among primary health workers in China

BACKGROUND

The integration of public health services into primary health care has been advocated and practiced worldwide for better management of preventable diseases. Health policy makers in China have started the reforms to better integrate public health services and clinical services, but public health services in China still remained neglected in primary health system. This study aimed to explore the input of Chinese primary health workers on delivering public health services and its association with their intrinsic working motivation in China.

METHODS

Data were collected from a cross-sectional survey conducted in 2019. Participants in this survey included 803 primary health workers in 75 primary health institutions in China. Questions about the input on clinical and public health services delivery and intrinsic working motivation were asked. A multiple linear regression model was adopted to investigate the correlation between intrinsic working motivation and the time input on public health service. The robustness of this model was checked with a generalized linear model.

RESULTS

Intrinsic motivation was found to have negative association with health workers' input on public health (β: -1.01, p < 0.05), with the robustness checked with a generalized linear model. The significance of this association differed in the group of urban community health centers and rural township health center. Other factors that had significant relationship with the input on public health services include the being nurses instead of doctors (p < 0.01), being a member of family doctor team (p < 0.01), recognition on relative importance of clinical services (p < 0.01), and perception on better exterior support (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

With higher intrinsic working motivation, primary health workers tended to spend less time on public health services. It reflected that doctors and nurses in primary healthcare institutions still perceived clinical treatment services as their main work responsibility and source of career recognition. Organizational level supports and system level policies should guide the primary health workers to increase their awareness on the importance of public health services and to cultivate their internal interests on public health services, in order to ensure sustainable input and performance improvement on public health services in primary health system in China.

The impacts of collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations and factors shaping how they work: a systematic review of reviews

BACKGROUND

Policymakers in many countries promote collaboration between health care organizations and other sectors as a route to improving population health. Local collaborations have been developed for decades. Yet little is known about the impact of cross-sector collaboration on health and health equity.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic review of reviews to synthesize evidence on the health impacts of collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations, and to understand the factors affecting how these partnerships functioned. We searched four databases and included 36 studies (reviews) in our review. We extracted data from these studies and used Nvivo 12 to help categorize the data. We assessed risk of bias in the studies using standardized tools. We used a narrative approach to synthesizing and reporting the data.

RESULTS

The 36 studies we reviewed included evidence on varying forms of collaboration in diverse contexts. Some studies included data on collaborations with broad population health goals, such as preventing disease and reducing health inequalities. Others focused on collaborations with a narrower focus, such as better integration between health care and social services. Overall, there is little convincing evidence to suggest that collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations improves health outcomes. Evidence of impact on health services is mixed. And evidence of impact on resource use and spending are limited and mixed. Despite this, many studies report on factors associated with better or worse collaboration. We grouped these into five domains: motivation and purpose, relationships and cultures, resources and capabilities, governance and leadership, and external factors. But data linking factors in these domains to collaboration outcomes is sparse.

CONCLUSIONS

In theory, collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations might contribute to better population health. But we know little about which kinds of collaborations work, for whom, and in what contexts. The benefits of collaboration may be hard to deliver, hard to measure, and overestimated by policymakers. Ultimately, local collaborations should be understood within their macro-level political and economic context, and as one component within a wider system of factors and interventions interacting to shape population health.