Sustainability of Collaborative Capacity in Community Health Partnerships
Abstract
Sustainability is a key requirement for partnership success and a major challenge for such organizations. Despite the critical importance of sustainability to the success of community health partnerships and the many threats to sustainability, there is little evidence that would provide partnerships with clear guidance on long-term viability. This article attempts to (1) develop a conceptual model of sustainability in community health partnerships and (2) identify potential determinants of sustainability using comparative qualitative data from four partnerships from the Community Care Network (CCN) Demonstration Program. Based on a grounded theory examination of qualitative data from the CCNevaluation, the authors hypothesize that there are five primary attributes/ activities of partnerships leading to consequential value and eventually to sustainability of collaborative capacity. They include outcomes-based advocacy, vision-focus balance, systems orientation, infrastructure development, and community linkages. The context in which the partnership operates provides the conditions for determining the appropriateness and relative impact of each of the factors related to creating consequential value in the partnership.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A selection of approaches looked at whether the initiative benefits were perceived by staff and other stakeholders as valuable.
“A selection of approaches took a wider perspective and looked at whether the initiative benefits were perceived by staff and other stakeholders as valuable [8, 30, 42, 51, 61-63].”
From Navigating the sustainability landscape: a systematic review of sustainability approaches in healthcare (2018) · cites this paper as [62]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 32 · Cited by 154
- Authors
- Alexander, J. A., Weiner, B. J., Metzger, M. E., Shortell, S. M., Bazzoli, G. J., Hasnain-Wynia, R., Sofaer, S., & Conrad, D. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
- Health Research and Educational Trust
- Baruch College (US)
- Department of Health Services and Dental Public Health Services
- Venue
- Medical Care Research and Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2003-12
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 4_suppl
- Pages
- 130S-160S
- ISSN
- 1077-5587 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-6801
- OpenAlex
- W2148488633
- Cited by
- 154
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 9.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Medical Care Research and Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Community Health and Development
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interprofessional Education and Collaboration
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Keywords
- sustainability, community health partnerships, collaborative capacity, conceptual model, infrastructure development, community linkages
- MeSH terms
- Interinstitutional Relations, Organizational Objectives, United States, Organizational Culture, Program Evaluation, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Models, Organizational, Community Networks
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review