Search results

Inclusion and participation have become key values steering the policies of many governments. Hence, partnerships are now considered increasingly prominent vehicles for stakeholder synergy, added value, collaborative advantage and building local capacities to address health and social concerns. However, generally leadership across organisational boundaries has received little attention, and particularly partnership leadership represents a central challenge in any collective undertaking.As an example, this paper starts by shedding light on the meaning of partnership. It then poses several questions in order to navigate the partnership‐leadership mantra. The paper examines the skills of leaders in five South African community partnerships as reported from the perspectives of each partnership and each participating stakeholder group. It describes the uniqueness of how each partnership views its leaders and the distinctiveness of how each stakeholder appraises its leadership. It highlights diffuse and shared leadership in collaborative settings, and it encourages the nurturing of emergent leaders. It concludes that one size of leadership does not fit all partnerships.

The objective of this paper is to propose a methodology to estimate the benefits and costs of stakeholder engagement (SE). Indeed, in the transport sector, it is consolidated that a good decision-making process foresees the involvement of the main stakeholders, but what are the benefits and costs of the SE? How to quantify these impacts and explicitly take them into account in a cost-benefit analysis? In this paper, an attempt to answer these questions is provided.

In this paper, a methodology is proposed to estimate the benefits and costs of SE. Moreover, the proposed methodology is applied to a case study with an attempt to identify direct and indirect cost and benefit drivers within the context.

A range of examples of the monetary costs and benefits of SE is provided through the case study of the high-speed rail corridor connecting Bari and Naples in Italy.

Limits in quantifying all the aspects of engagement.

To be adopted by public administrations when deciding whether carrying out a project.

Social inclusion is a must in any decision-making process concerning big projects affecting the community.

The original value of this paper is to provide a contribution to the current literature on the quantitative representation of the impacts of SE. Indeed, a methodology to quantify and monetize the costs and benefits of SE is proposed.

The purpose of this paper is to consider some notions that are currently in use in integrated care, with the aim of exploring whether these notions improve the quality and integration of care.

Notions like “continuity of care”, “coordination of care”, “team‐working” and “partnerships” are some of the wide variety of terms increasingly employed within the range of initiatives and efforts that aim to enhance the quality of health and social care environments for patients and users. While each of these notions seems to represent a worthy cause in the quest for better care, and is accompanied by varying extents of evidence of its effectiveness, conceptual clarity of each notion remains a challenge. This paper undertook a detailed examination of what each of these notions comprises, how it is measured objectively and subjectively, whilst highlighting any apparent overlap between the notions.

From the analysis of the four notions, two main patterns of dysfunctional features emerged: the first pattern involved issues of multiple, imprecise and constricted definitions; the second pattern had to do with imprecise or conflicting assessments of how the different notions or dimensions thereof are related to one another.

A review of the literature suggests that the meanings, and consequently the measurement, of these notions could benefit from less ambiguity in order to prevent confusion about what precisely is being implemented and measured.

In order that calls for quality improvement do not become slogan statements, there is an urgent need for integrated framework(s) that add clarity to an already compound web of notions. This could contribute to improving the quality of research and evidence base of this complex field.

The costs and benefits of patient/public involvement in health, social and political settings are important determinants of whether people and organisations participate. However, actual costs and benefits of public participation are rarely measured other than as proxies or as only “measuring the measurable”. This paper aims to examine whether economic analysis poses a threat or an opportunity for future public participation.

This inquiry is based on original research by INVOLVE (literature review of participation costs/benefits; qualitative interviews with “think tanks”, participants and managers of participation projects) that examined the options for measuring monetary costs and benefits of public participation.

The case against measuring includes: mainstream economic theory is unable to explain participation; mainstream economic models are unsuitable for appropriately assessing participation costs and benefits; participation benefits are beyond economic value; and, economic values of participation may be misinterpreted and misused. Conversely, the case for measuring includes: economic measurement is necessary because public participation constitutes investments of public resources; there is a need to improve the evidence base on which participation decisions are made; the lack of economic information about participation causes problems; and neo‐classical economics is not the only available option for measuring participation costs/benefits.

The limitations and implications for granting bodies, researchers/health economists, evaluators/administrators, and donor‐commissioned evaluations are discussed.

There is a need for innovative indicators that capture the costs and benefits of public participation, as well as appropriate resources for the economic analysis of such initiatives.