Skip to main content

Table 4 Results of the DISC-analyses based on the transcribed interviews and document analysis

From: Diagnosis of sustainable collaboration in health promotion – a case study

  Education Health Promotion Government
External factors Policies and regulations
Inclusive education: this puts a strain on individual pupil care in regular schools inhibiting attention for health promotion and prevention at group level
Attitudes financing bodies
Lump sum financing for schools
Additional finances for pupil care in schools in deprived areas
Policies and regulations
-
Attitudes financing bodies
- Introduction of free market mechanisms in health promotion and welfare feeds feelings of competition among partners, especially at the advisory level
Policies and regulations
- Decentralization of tasks and regulations from national to regional and local governments
Context Existing collaborations
- A collaborative history with youth health care and youth monitoring with limited results so far
- For schools in deprived areas a collaborative history with youth welfare with mixed evaluations
- Safe schools working group with municipality, police, justice and public health
Organizational characteristics
- Autonomy of teaching staff
- No planning and reporting of HP actions
Research power
- Not present locally
Relevant local policies
- Safe schools policy
- Youth welfare in schools
Existing collaborations
- The public health institute has positive collaborative experiences with all HP partners.
- Limited collaborative experiences exists among the partners themselves
- Participation in safe schools working group
Organizational characteristics
- Innovation minded management
- Limited internal support for HP
Research power
- Around half of the HP organizations involved have academic research experience.
Relevant local policies
- Youth welfare in schools as pilot welcomed by schools
- Regional shared care networks for youth policy
Existing collaborations
- Negative experiences prevail with the institute providing most of the schoolBeat-leadership.
- Positive attitude towards another schoolBeat-partner
- Neutral towards other parties involved.
- Coordinator of the safe schools working group
Organizational characteristics
- Influenced by political changes
- Bureaucratic
Research power
- A lack of expertise and direct interest in generating and using academic evidence.
Relevant local policies
- Regional shared care networks for youth policy
Change Management Innovation perspective
- Based on educational expertise
Change strategies
- Not actively applied
Network development
- Inclusion of leadership of a primary schools' representative and a care coordinator would be desirable
Innovation perspective
- Based on empirical evidence combined with existing expertise among partners
Change strategies
- Network meetings
- Education of HP staff
Network development
- More active support from HP management is desired.
Innovation perspective
- not clearly defined
Change strategies
- open for information regarding the collaborative process
Network development
- wish to start sharing information with members of local and regional politics
Project management No participation of schools in the project organization at this stage. Whom: actors
filled in by the HP organizations only
What & How: tasks & structure
described by the coordinator and agreed upon by the management of partner organizations
No official governmental participation
One civil servant participated in the project group but started as education support staff before changing jobs and was allowed by his new employer to keep participating once joining an education department at municipality level.
Support
Perceptions
Intentions
Actions
Perceptions: goals/importance
- Quality improvement
- Creation of a pupil care support continuum
Perceptions: win-win
- Workload sharing regarding pupil care with organizations outside the school
- School health profiles add to internal school assessments for planning purposes.
Perceptions: consensus
- Tailored support from a single point of contact
- Unease regarding the attention not yet paid to individual pupil care
Perceptions: involvement
- Direct involvement of public service is missed by some
Intentions: willingness to trust
- Seems present based on previous experiences with the HP partners
Intentions: willingness to commit
- Based on perceived added value most school administrators are willing to commit
Actions: innovative actions and adaptations
- Appointment of prevention teams in the first schools
- High level of participation in evaluation
Overall: sufficient
Perceptions:goals/importance
- Quality improvement
- Strengthening HP within schools
- Creation of a HP support continuum
Perceptions: win-win
- Workload sharing provides a win to all HP organizations involved
Perceptions: consensus
- Consensus is present regarding the basic outline of the methodology
- Tension is present regarding specific elements of the methodology
Perceptions: involvement
- Direct involvement of schools and public service is missed by some
Intentions: willingness to trust
- Feelings of competition among HP advisors and managers
Intentions: willingness to commit
- Moderate to high, with major differences among organizations
Intentions: willingness to change
- Is present, but partners are keen on experiencing some positive results first and do not know yet what exact changes would be necessary
Actions: innovative actions and adaptations
- Appointment of schoolBeat – support staff to schools by the four key-partners
- Description of support options in unified format by all partners
Overall: sufficient/good
Perceptions: goals/importance
- Improvement of efficiency and quality of HP and pupil care support
- Deleting overlap in HP support
Perceptions: win-win
- Unclear about the value for the municipalities involved
Intentions: willingness to trust
- Benefit of the doubt based on the core ideas of the collaborative subject: whole-school health promotion
Intentions: willingness to commit
- Moderate, as long as requirements set at the start are met
Actions: innovative actions and adaptations
- Nearly absent
- Limited participation in evaluation
Actions: resources
- The collaborative process needs to produce a methodology which entails no additional costs to local governments
Overall: sufficient/good
Coordinated school health promotion Idea – start of a project Main focus on project (beyond idea phase) Main focus on project (beyond idea phase)