Identifying the role of community partnerships in creating change to support active living

Am J Prev Med. 2012 Nov;43(5 Suppl 4):S290-9. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.07.003.

Abstract

Background: Active Living by Design (ALbD) partnerships were established to change environments and policies as well as support complementary programs and promotions to increase physical activity in 25 communities across the U.S.

Purpose: This paper summarizes the structural and functional aspects of partnerships identified as having a substantial influence on these initiatives.

Methods: A mixed-methods evaluation included qualitative (e.g., key informant interviews, focus groups) and quantitative (e.g., survey, web-based tracking) methods. Data were collected from 2003 to 2008, systematically analyzed to identify influential factors, and triangulated for model development.

Results: The partnerships identified a number of structural and functional factors that were important to their success, including multisectoral partners, flexible governance structures, leadership, group management, action planning, and assessment/evaluation. Three types of partnership models-utilitarian, lead agency, and collaboration-emerged across the community partnerships. Most partnerships reported challenges with engaging community members and ensuring equitable distribution of resources at the local level.

Conclusions: The ALbD community partnerships utilized several structural and functional factors to enhance the success of their multisector collaborations. Yet, the varied types of lead agencies, partners, and partnership structures suggest that there is no one best way to bring partners together.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Community Participation / methods
  • Community-Institutional Relations*
  • Exercise*
  • Focus Groups
  • Health Promotion / methods
  • Health Promotion / organization & administration*
  • Humans
  • Interviews as Topic
  • Leadership
  • Models, Organizational
  • Motor Activity
  • Program Evaluation
  • Role
  • United States