California Policy Lab, Institute of Research on Labor and Employment, University of California, Berkeley, 2521 Channing Way, Berkeley, CA, 94704, USA.
Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, 995 Potrero Ave, San Francisco, CA, 94110, USA.
BMC Public Health. 2024 Jul 29;24(1):2020. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-19465-y.
Health and social sector organizations are increasingly working together to mitigate socioeconomic adversity within their communities. We sought to learn about the motivations, experiences, and perspectives of organizations engaged in these collaborations.
We conducted semi-structured, 60-minute interviews with 34 leaders from 25 health and social sector organizations between January-April 2021. Interviews explored motivations, benefits and challenges, and ways in which health sector organizations can most effectively address community-level socioeconomic adversity. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed; themes were coded using Dedoose software.
Partnerships were primarily motivated by mission-driven organizations and key health sector leaders who were interested in addressing root causes of poor health; policies such as certificate of need laws and value-based care incentives that aligned community-level investments with health sector organizations' financial interests facilitated these efforts. While partnerships were mostly regarded as mutually beneficial ways to increase impact (for the health sector) and resource access (for the social sector), social sector organizations voiced frustrations regarding the outsized expectations, unsustained interest, and lack of partnership from their health sector collaborators. Despite these frustrations, both health and social sector interviewees supported the health sector's continued involvement in community-level socioeconomic initiatives and expansion of policy and systems efforts.
Cross-sector, community-level socioeconomic initiatives were mutually beneficial, but social sector organizations experienced more frustrations. Policy and organizational changes within the health sector can further mobilize and sustain support for these efforts.
健康和社会部门组织越来越多地合作,以减轻其所在社区的社会经济劣势。我们试图了解参与这些合作的组织的动机、经验和观点。
我们在 2021 年 1 月至 4 月期间对来自 25 个健康和社会部门组织的 34 名领导人进行了半结构式、60 分钟的访谈。访谈探讨了合作的动机、收益和挑战,以及卫生部门组织如何最有效地解决社区层面的社会经济劣势。访谈进行了录音并进行了转录;使用 Dedoose 软件对主题进行了编码。
伙伴关系主要是由有使命的组织和对解决健康不良根本原因感兴趣的主要卫生部门领导人推动的;证书需求法和基于价值的医疗保健激励等政策使社区层面的投资与卫生部门组织的财务利益保持一致,促进了这些努力。虽然伙伴关系主要被视为增加影响(对卫生部门)和资源获取(对社会部门)的互利方式,但社会部门组织对其卫生部门合作伙伴的过高期望、持续兴趣缺乏和缺乏伙伴关系表示不满。尽管存在这些不满,但卫生和社会部门的受访者都支持卫生部门继续参与社区层面的社会经济举措以及扩大政策和系统工作。
跨部门、社区层面的社会经济举措是互利的,但社会部门组织感到更多的挫折。卫生部门内的政策和组织变革可以进一步调动和维持对这些努力的支持。