Evaluating intersectoral collaboration in health promotion: development of a conceptual framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Issue In Québec, Canada, public health authorities position intersectoral collaboration as a core element of its professional practice in face of the increasing complexity of public health challenges. However, several obstacles to effective collaboration may arise and a structured analysis of the health impact of the collaborative spaces is required to ensure good allocation of resources. Practice description The aim was to develop a framework for the evaluation and prioritization of intersectoral collaborative spaces. Specifically, we aimed to identify key criteria for 1) effectiveness; 2) feasibility and 3) prioritizing of collaborative spaces. The framework was developed and validated using existing evaluation tools identified through a rapid review of literature, combined with a qualitative, consensus-based research method with seven experts in health promotion. Results The final framework comprises 15 criteria covering four essential domains: (1) relevance of the collaboration; (2) magnitude of the health issues; (3) potential influence of the collaboration on these issues; and (4) feasibility of the collaborative process. The framework was used by different regional public health authorities and supported more strategic prioritization of resource allocation. It also enhanced the potential health impact of selected collaborations, while increasing intersectoral partners’ commitment into the collaboration process. Lessons Using the framework showed that scores should not be viewed as an absolute, but rather be interpreted alongside qualitative insights to support the prioritization of collaborative efforts. Our innovative approach highlights the critical need for rigorous and reproducible analysis of intersectoral collaborations to ensure their effectiveness and impact. Key messages • Intersectoral collaboration is key in health promotion. • Rigorous, reproducible evaluation helps ensure its effectiveness and strengthens the credibility of public health action.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.181 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".