Abstract
This study is a survey of administrative divisions involved in tobacco programs in Canadian public health units. It aims to identify correlates of public health units’ contacts and collaborations with external agencies, as predisposing factors in their capacity to innovate. Heads of 124 divisions involved in tobacco control completed a questionnaire about their budgets, staff, and management practices. In each of these divisions, professionals involved in tobacco programs also completed a questionnaire about their characteristics and experience. Results showed a high level of contacts and collaborations with external agencies. Four variables emerged as correlates of external communications: professionals’ degree of access to public health information sources, the diversity of disciplines within the administrative division, the decentralization of authority, and the level of professionals’ participation in decision-making. Because of the potential relationship between innovation and external communication, public health units should consider fostering external communication by management practices and policies, such as favouring professional diversity, increasing access to sources of information, and adopting more decentralized, participatory management.
Résumé
Cet article rapporte les résultats d’une enquête effectuée auprès des organisations de santé publique canadiennes, plus précisément auprès de leurs unités administratives œuvrant à la réduction du tabagisme (n = 124). Son objectif est de cerner les facteurs associés au maintien de contacts et de liens de collaboration entre ces unités et les organisations externes et, partant, à leur capacité d’innover. Deux types de questionnaires ont été acheminés dans chaque unité. Un premier questionnaire s’adressait au cadre responsable et portait sur diverses caractéristiques organisationnelles de l’unité (budget, personnel, pratiques de gestion, etc.). Le second visait les professionnels des programmes de lutte antitabac afin de documenter leur caractéristiques et leur expérience. Les résultats révèlent un niveau élevé de contacts et de collaboration avec les organisations externes. Les facteurs associés à ce phénomène sont les suivants: degré d’accès des professionnels aux sources d’information en santé publique, diversité des disciplines professionnelles représentées au sein de l’unité, décentralisation des pouvoirs et participation des professionnels à la prise de décision. De ces résultats se dégagent des pistes d’action utiles pour stimuler les communications externes et créer des conditions potentiellement propices à l’innovation dans les organisations de santé publique.
References
- 1.Ginter P, Duncan W, Capper A. Keeping strategic thinking in strategic planning: Macro-environmental analysis in a state department of public health. Public Health. 1992;106:253–69. doi: 10.1016/S0033-3506(05)80418-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Miller A, Moore K, Richards T, et al. Longitudinal observation of a selected group of local health departments: A preliminary report. J Public Health Pol. 1993;14:34–50. doi: 10.2307/3342825. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Miller A, Moore K, Richards T, Monk J. A proposed method for assessing the performance of local public health functions and practices. Am J Public Health. 1994;84:1743–49. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.84.11.1743. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Studnicki J. Evaluating the performance of public health agencies: Information needs. Am J Prev Med. 1995;11:74–80. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(18)30390-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Aiken M, Hage J. The organic organization and innovation. Sociology. 1971;5:63–82. doi: 10.1177/003803857100500105. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Ebadi Y, Utterback J. The effects of communication on technological innovation. Management Science. 1984;30:572–85. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.30.5.572. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Albrecht T, Ropp A. Communicating about innovation in networks of three U.S. organizations. J Communication. 1984;34(3):78–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1984.tb02175.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Monge P, Cozzens M, Contractor N. Communication and motivational predictors of the dynamics of organizational innovation. Organization Science. 1992;3:250–74. doi: 10.1287/orsc.3.2.250. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Weenig M, Midden C. Communication network influences on information diffusion and persuasion. J Personality and Social Psychology. 1991;61:734–42. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.61.5.734. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Tushman M, Katz R. External communication and project performance: An investigation into the role of gatekeepers. Management Science. 1977;26:1071–85. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.26.11.1071. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Pratt M, McDonald S, Libbey P, et al. Local health departments in Washington State use APEX to assess capacity. Public Health Rep. 1996;111:87–91. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Champagne F, Leduc N, Denis JL, Pineault R. Organizational and environmental determinants of the performance of public health units. Soc Sci Med. 1993;37:85–95. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(93)90321-T. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Baker E, Melton R, Stange P, et al. Health reform and the health of the public: Forging community health partnerships. JAMA. 1994;272(16):1276–82. doi: 10.1001/jama.1994.03520160060044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Scott C, Thurston W. A framework for the development of community health agency partnerships. Can J Public Health. 1997;88(6):416–20. doi: 10.1007/BF03403918. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Simmons J, Salisbury Z, Williams E, et al. Inter-organizational collaboration and dissemination of health promotion for older Americans. Health Educ Q. 1989;16:529–50. doi: 10.1177/109019818901600406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Aiken M, Hage J. Organizational independence and intra-organizational structure. Am Sociol Rev. 1968;33:912–30. doi: 10.2307/2092683. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Hage J, Aiken M. Relationship of centralization to other structural properties. Administrative Science Q. 1967;12:72–91. doi: 10.2307/2391213. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Moch M, Morse E. Size, centralization and the organizational adoption of innovations. Am Sociol Rev. 1977;42:716–25. doi: 10.2307/2094861. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Morin R, Roy G. La dispensation des services de santé publique: proposition d’un cadre de référence. Can J Public Health. 1996;87:32–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Richard L, Breton, Lehoux P, et al. La perception de professionnels de santé publique face à deux dimensions de la promotion de la santé: approche écologique et participation. Can J Public Health. 1999;90:99–103. doi: 10.1007/BF03404110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Suen J, Christenson G, Cooper A, Taylor M. Analysis of the current status of public health practices in local health departments. Am J Prev Med. 1995;11:51–54. doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(18)30387-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Chambers L, Haynes R, Pickering R, et al. New approaches to addressing information needs in local public health agencies. Can J Public Health. 1991;82:109–14. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Richard L, Potvin L, Denis JL, Kishchuk N. Integration of the ecological approach in tobacco programs for youth: A survey of Canadian public health organizations. Health Promotion Practice (Accepted for publication).
- 24.Hage J, Aiken M. Routine technology, social structure and organizational goals. Administrative Science Q. 1969;14:366–76. doi: 10.2307/2391132. [DOI] [Google Scholar]