Initial program theory 1
| Strategy | Context | Mechanism | Outcome | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GMI | Introduced MoU* | Organizations within single governance structure are formally signed up through MoU, which contained a compelling vision | Organizations having one joined-up conversation based on a compelling narrative for change and collaboration | Helped to commit and uphold MoU |
| History of collaborative working across organizations and sectors | Generated trust in the partnership compared to those who had not travelled as far on the integration journey | |||
| Close working relationships | Generated trust in each other as if there were no winners or losers | |||
| VHCSII | Introduced MoU | MoU was only signed by the City and the Health Authority without the other organizations brought together under the Leadership Table. | VHCS' vision was experienced as coherent and appealing | This was enough to ensure Leadership Table's commitment for the planning phase but not during the implementation phase |
| GEN-HIII | Introduced a convening organization | Convener raised enough money to secure experts' buy-in and invited all community leaders to come up with effective long-term solutions for the region | The gap analysis raised awareness around what areas should be improved and that organizations' engagement was necessary to develop clear stakeholder' roles | Commitment to the vision and goals surrounding a three-stepped approach |
| GKIIII | Introduced a convening organization | Convener developed a shared vision including (financial) incentives for change | Facilitated understanding of potential long-term shared savings' investment and to develop a culture of health | Commitment to the vision and a common set of strategies |
| Providers hold 2/3 of the shares and convener 1/3 (5–10% additional revenue) |
| Strategy | Context | Mechanism | Outcome | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GMI | Introduced MoU* | Organizations within single governance structure are formally signed up through MoU, which contained a compelling vision | Organizations having one joined-up conversation based on a compelling narrative for change and collaboration | Helped to commit and uphold MoU |
| History of collaborative working across organizations and sectors | Generated trust in the partnership compared to those who had not travelled as far on the integration journey | |||
| Close working relationships | Generated trust in each other as if there were no winners or losers | |||
| VHCSII | Introduced MoU | MoU was only signed by the City and the Health Authority without the other organizations brought together under the Leadership Table. | VHCS' vision was experienced as coherent and appealing | This was enough to ensure Leadership Table's commitment for the planning phase but not during the implementation phase |
| GEN-HIII | Introduced a convening organization | Convener raised enough money to secure experts' buy-in and invited all community leaders to come up with effective long-term solutions for the region | The gap analysis raised awareness around what areas should be improved and that organizations' engagement was necessary to develop clear stakeholder' roles | Commitment to the vision and goals surrounding a three-stepped approach |
| GKIIII | Introduced a convening organization | Convener developed a shared vision including (financial) incentives for change | Facilitated understanding of potential long-term shared savings' investment and to develop a culture of health | Commitment to the vision and a common set of strategies |
| Providers hold 2/3 of the shares and convener 1/3 (5–10% additional revenue) |
Note(s): Create trust in a shared vision and understanding of the PHM rationale to establish stakeholders' commitment to the partnership. IGM: Greater Manchester; IIVHCS: Vancouver Healthy City Strategy; IIIGEN-H: Generation Health; IIIIGK: Gesundes Kinzigtal; *MoU: memorandum of understanding