Table 1.

Community partnerships: factors, ^† their description and reliability.

Factor	Description	Number of Items	Mean	Alpha*
Leadership skills	Leaders use incentive management skills	11	0.71	0.78
Management capabilities	Effective management processes and policies	22	4.94	0.93
Community representation in the CP	Perception that CP is representative of the community	1	2.65	—
Staff-community communication	Quality of staff-community member communication	5	4.58	0.91
Community communication	Quality of community member-member communication	5	4.79	0.92
Flow of information	Amount, accuracy, timing, relevance of information	5	4.63	0.68
Participation benefits	Benefits accrued to participant and organisation	11	5.17	0.90
Satisfaction with the CP	Satisfied with CP operations/ accomplishments	5	4.63	0.84
Resource allocation satisfaction	Satisfied with use of CP funds in the community	1	3.84	—
Staff expertise	Abilities as change agents, working with / organising community groups, implementing educational activities, maintaining the CPs	11	5.07	0.91
Community member expertise		11	4.63	0.90
CPs’ engagement in policy activities	Engagement in policy/ advocacy activities	1	4.05	—
CPs’ effectiveness in policy activities	Partners’ involvement/ effectiveness in policy/advocacy activities	2	5.10	0.80
CPs’ engagement in HPE education	Engagement in educational activities	1	5.36	—
CPs’ effectiveness in educational activities	Partners’ involvement/ effectiveness in educational activities	2	5.40	0.82
Sense of ownership	Committed, feels pride, cares about the CP	4	5.31	0.76
Organisational commitment	Endorsed/adopted CPs’ missions; cosponsored efforts	4	5.17	0.79
Interactions within the CP	Interactions, conflict, differences, control among partners	7	4.80	0.81
Decision-making	Attitudes/ beliefs related to participation in the CP	9	4.73	0.67
Outcomes	Confidence that CP will influence HPE/PHC	16	4.72	0.93
Contributions to the CPa	Extent to which partners/organizations make contributions	4	3.87	0.72
Participation costsb	Participation in the CP is difficult	5	3.52	0.67
Organizational barriersc	Agency structure/systems, funding, attitudes, lack of vision	17	2.12	0.88
Personnel barriersc	Expertise, proprieties interest, availability, turnover	9	2.15	0.85
Perceived effectivenessd	Communication, decisions, coordination, service delivery	15	2.17	0.91
Perceived activityd	Rating of CP activity over 2 consecutive years	2	1.84	0.66
Role claritye	Role perception matches that of participant	4	2.47	0.82
Operational understanding f	Knows CP mission, structure, operations	5	0.62	0.75
Communication mechanismsg	Use of newsletters, reports, meetings, etc.	7	0.45	0.68
Rules and proceduresh	Operating principles, member orientation, mission, etc.	9	0.58	0.78
Previous CP experiencei	Past experience of members in other partnerships	1	11	—

^*Cronbach Alpha; CP: community partnership; HPE: health personnel education; PHC: primary health care;

^†All sections scored on 7-point scales, higher ratings indicate a more ‘positive perception’, except;

^a higher ratings indicate more contributions;

^b higher ratings indicate more costs;

^c Scored on 3-point scales, higher ratings indicate that barriers are less of a problem;

^d Scored on 4-point scales, higher ratings indicate less effectiveness and less activity respectively;

^e Scored on 5-point scales, higher ratings indicate more (higher level of) input (e.g. from advice only, to develop, recommend, or approve the CP ‘s budget, goals, comprehensive plan);

^f Scored on 2-point scales, higher ratings indicate a more ‘positive perception’;

^g categorical variable (YES/NO), overall probability (percentage) of YES answer ;

^h categorical variable with three categories, overall probability (percentage) of YES answer;

ⁱ percentage of respondents reporting ‘YES’.