Journal Home
Search for

Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 36-49 (March 2009)


View previous. 9 of 14 View next.

The reality of partnership working when undertaking an evaluation of a national Well Men's Service

Garth D. Reid, BSc, MScaCorresponding Author Informationemail address, Edwin R. van Teijlingen, MA, Med, PhDa, Flora Douglas, BN RGN, PgDip, MPHa, Lynn Robertson, BSca, Anne Ludbrook, BA, MScb

Received 8 September 2008; accepted 26 September 2008.

Abstract 

Background

Partnership working has been a key tenet of health policy in Scotland since 1997. Much has been written about the benefits of partnership working, but it has been difficult to prove its effectiveness. This paper describes the reality of working in partnership when undertaking an evaluation of a complex intervention aimed at engaging with hard-to-reach men to improve their health.

Methods

A collaborative model of working was used to develop an evaluation tool to assess the effectiveness of the intervention. Six phases were used in the developmental process each involving a different group of stakeholders. The progress through these phases was not linear; it involved numerous iterative feedback loops. A number of challenges were faced at each phase and steps were taken to overcome them.

Results

Four lessons emerged which are more generally applicable. Collaborative working is a slow process, a fact which key advocates in the field have failed to recognise. Study participants need to be included in partnership working, particularly men. Partnership working can be arduous and those undertaking it should be prepared for the difficulties ahead since the key to success is being able to overcome these challenges. Flexibility is a key element to the successful evaluation of community-based large scale interventions.

Conclusion

This research identified that it is important to be flexible to meeting the changing needs of stakeholders involved in the evaluative process.

a Department of Public Health, University of Aberdeen, UK

b Health Economics Research Unit, Polwarth Building, University of Aberdeen, UK

Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author.

PII: S1875-6867(08)00202-9

doi:10.1016/j.jomh.2008.09.007


View previous. 9 of 14 View next.