Skip to main content
  • 7 Nikola Pašić Sq., 4th Fl., 11000 Belgrade
  • info@smj.rs

logo LKS

Review article

A view of multidisciplinary health promotion teams

Katarina Boričić1, Mirjana Tošić1, Slađana Šiljak2
  • Institute of Public Health of Serbia Dr Milan Jovanović Batut, Belgrade, Serbia
  • Public Health Institute of the Republic of Srpska, Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina

ABSTRACT

The success of modern health promotion programs, which have been brought about by political decision at the local, national, and international levels, depend on the effectiveness of health promotion teams. In this article, the multidisciplinary approach is reviewed as a modern approach to teamwork for health promotion, which is a prerequisite for effective health promotion. The multidisciplinary approach includes a wide range of experts in public health, with different knowledge, qualifications, and skills, brought together to contribute to the provision of health promotion services from their own perspective.


INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, health promotion programs are created by politics at the local, national and international levels, and their successful implementation and results depend on the effectiveness of relevant health promotion groups and teams [1]. However, developing and maintaining teamwork in health promotion requires conscious and continuous efforts, because these teams are often part of larger coalitions, which require a lot of organizational activities and control, as well as the investment of significant sums of money. Instead of the term coalition, other terms such as alliances, horizontal integration, partnerships and collaborations are often used as synonyms [2],[3]. Therefore, it is a kind of alliance of partnerships between individuals, groups of representatives of different organizations within the community, and institutions, agreeing to work together to achieve a common goal [4]. The goal of the formation of the aforementioned ‘alliance’ for health promotion is to enable people to increase their influence on the factors that affect their health and well-being.

The priorities of the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion also represent the areas of work of health promotion teams. Namely, empowering the individual, promoting social responsibility for health, and creating an environment to support the development of personal skills, and strengthening community action [5]. The principles of health promotion represent the foundation of successful teamwork [5]. Teamwork is the key to effective health promotion within primary health care [6]. In addition to the qualities of the individuals involved, what makes teamwork truly successful is the way members of a multidisciplinary team work together [7]. The multidisciplinary approach includes a wide range of experts in public health, with different knowledge, qualifications and skills, who, when brought together, each from their own aspect, contribute to the provision of health promotion services.

Martin, Charlesworth and Henderson [8] state that health promotion teams very often struggle with issues that dramatically affect people’s lives, and individual team members often pay a certain personal price.

In this article, a review of the multidisciplinary approach, as a modern approach to teamwork for health promotion, which is a prerequisite for effective health improvement, is presented.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This paper is a literature review which was compiled by searching publications from 1986 to 2022, with the help of the keywords ‘health promotion’, ‘multidisciplinary’, ‘teamwork’, published in both Serbian and English. After being analyzed, the most important results from the literature review were synthesized and categorized, in order to describe the barriers in teamwork for health promotion, and the importance of a multidisciplinary approach.

TEAMWORK IN HEALTH PROMOTION

According to Naidoo and Wills [9], the phrase ‘health promotion’ originates from the 19th century, when the emergence of epidemics of infectious diseases necessitated the implementation of sanitary reform in overcrowded industrial cities, which included educating the population in order to preserve and improve people’s health in the fight against infectious diseases [10].

The greatest achievements in health promotion in the 20th century were in Great Britain [11]. In this country, in the professional circles, the idea that health policy cannot be limited merely to the provision of curative services, due to the fact that the health of each individual depends both on lifestyle as well as on the environment in which a person lives, became more and more prominent [12]. Debates regarding this issue led to the health promotion movement, via the Ottawa Charter [5], which gave rise to the definition of health promotion that is commonly used today. Namely, health promotion is defined not only as action aimed at strengthening the skills and abilities of individuals to increase control over their health and to improve it, but also as action aimed at changing social, ecological and economic conditions, in order to mitigate their impact on public health and the health of the individual.

Health promotion relies greatly on a plethora of experts from the health sector, but also from other areas, such as the education sector, the social protection sector, media representatives, representatives of local authorities, etc. [13], who have different public health roles, i.e., as consultants, researchers, project leaders, advocates, coordinators, and other [14].

Although the words ‘group’ and ‘team’ are used synonymously, it is necessary to distinguish between these two terms. According to Martin, Charlesworth and Henderson [8], a group is any collection of people who communicate with each other because they perceive that they have a similar purpose or similar interests, while a team is a group of people with a sense of a common goal or task, which requires cooperation and coordination of the activities of its members. Ergo, a group of people is labeled as a team because their leader, or even they themselves, expect them to work effectively together towards achieving cooperation and good coordination. These people come from different organizations and professions but share a common goal and act in different ways according to their different knowledge, cultural traditions and goals [15].

Coalitions share many characteristics with conventional teams, but they also differ from them, which requires a different approach to their formation. Firstly, coalitions are usually composed of representative groups wherein each member has duties and commitments to a different organization [3], and this diversity guarantees unique connections with different stakeholders in the team’s focal environment. Secondly, coalitions often form when teams experience high pressure and conflict [16]. Thirdly, coalitions typically face different expectations than conventional work teams. They are often expected to engage with a complex network of external partners to identify unique community needs, as well as manage coordination, knowledge transfer, and political maneuvering in order to bring innovative public health plans and programs to communities [17],[18].

Healthcare coalitions encourage engagement and enhance the sense of belonging and commitment of all health professionals. If health promotion policy aims to improve the health and well-being of the population, then collaboration between different organizations is essential [19]. Gillis [20] states that such collaboration is essential for health care that understands the goals of health promotion. However, teamwork and cooperation should be built on the respect for the feelings and autonomy of individuals, even if this is a very difficult challenge. A key challenge faced by coalitions that aim to operate on the basis of multiple strategies is to develop quality connections with other groups in their immediate environment.

It is very important that the formation of the coalition is in accordance with the phases and goals of the project, instead of it being formed based on other criteria [21]. If the goal is to promote the implementation of health education plans, it is sufficient to have a homogeneous coalition with low professional diversity of members, a firmly defined structure where it is known who is and who is not a member, where the way in which each member will contribute to the coalition (and for how long) is defined, and where the services of outside experts are seldom used. If the goal is the implementation of several different health promotion strategies, a loosely bound structure, wherein the services of external experts are often used, seems more adequate [21]. Unfortunately, many managers in charge of coalitions have difficulties in adapting its structure in response to the changing external environment [22].

MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO HEALTH PROMOTION AND ITS CHALLENGES

A multidisciplinary approach to health promotion involves a wide range of experts in public health, with different knowledge, qualifications and skills, who are brought together so that each one of them, from their own aspect, can contribute to the provision of health promotion services [23].

Although some public health experts believe that they have a more significant, even leading role in promoting and improving the health of the population, the synergy of the group, the quality of interpersonal relationships, and good communication in the team are decisive in the implementation of public health programs [24]. Building a supportive environment, where the population can live and work, cannot be carried out by a single profession or the health sector alone. The structure of the health promotion team should be multidisciplinary, and the knowledge gained during joint work improves the health promotion process. The intersectoral cooperation of different experts in public health, both from the state and the private sector, is essential for effective health promotion [25].

The multidisciplinary nature of health promotion teams is often a great strength, but the teams appear to be vulnerable to a new set of challenges. Indeed, research shows that knowledge-based diversity tends to improve team performance because members can view challenges from a wider range of different perspectives, experiences, and expertise [26]. However, these teams may also have greater difficulty in integrating their knowledge, sharing information and reaching decisions [27],[28]. Therefore, multidisciplinary teams have the potential to improve team creativity and performance, but only if they are able to overcome the challenges associated with integrating diverse perspectives, which includes challenges related to team role ambiguity, intra-team conflict, and psychological safety [27].

Due to the diversity in the composition of the team, difficulties may occur during the exchange of information and decision-making. Scientists have proven that teams within which members change frequently can have difficulties when assigning roles and responsibilities [29].

Multidisciplinary teams may be more likely to experience conflict [30] precisely because experts from different fields may have different opinions about the best way to accomplish a task or may have personal disagreements over how resources should be allocated. Conflicts cause dissatisfaction among individual team members, which reduces the effectiveness of the team in achieving results.

Researchers describe three types of conflict among team members [31]. The first one refers to conflict over group tasks, which arises due to different ideas and perspectives among the group members. The second type of conflict is process conflict, which refers to the different approaches of individual members of the group in relation to the course of activities. The third type of conflict stems from bad relationships between group members.

Conflict may positively affect the work of group members if it is only a conflict regarding group tasks with a low level of interpersonal conflict and process conflict [32],[33]. Team dysfunction occurs if there is interpersonal conflict and high-level process conflict [34].

Psychological safety is another important aspect of the functioning of a team, especially a multidisciplinary one, as can be found in health promotion programs. The smaller the hierarchical difference between the team members the greater the psychological safety, since individuals in the team help each other exchange ideas, solve certain tasks faster and more functionally, as well as express disagreement amongst each other, if there are differing opinions [35],[36]. If the hierarchy among team members is greater, which is often found among health professionals, the psychological safety of the team is lower [37].

Although the existence of role ambiguity, team conflict, and low psychological safety can present unique challenges to health promotion teams, there are a number of techniques that can help teams overcome these obstacles, and they must be an integral part of training for health promotion teams. One such technique is holding short team meetings either before, during, or after tasks are completed, which can help promote psychological safety [38] and reduce team role ambiguity [39]. Furthermore, team building, as a conflict management technique, can improve interpersonal relationships, social interaction and the establishing of common team goals [40]. Also, very important for promoting psychological safety within the team, is the creation of such an environment where team members have the freedom to ask questions and receive adequate feedback from the team leader [41].

Successful teamwork can fail if potential challenges are not thought through. Individuals and groups working together will have different perceptions of each other’s roles and may not understand the ways in which other organizations operate. This could lead to a misunderstanding of the different organizational cultures and limitations of another organization [42]. Challenges that may arise in teamwork include lack of commitment at a higher level, professional rivalry, especially among team members with differences in professional status, inclusion of new partners, lack of appropriate skills, and the lack of common goals [42]. The lack of awareness that certain organizations operate on different levels – from the national to the district or local level, and that they cover different populations, can affect the success or failure of the implementation of health promotion programs [43].

Another potential obstacle is competition between the public and the private sector. It is obvious that private companies are financial enterprises interested in expanding their market shares in a competitive market. In contrast, the public sector has limited resources for health [44]. The exchange of information among the participants of multi-sector coalitions is also a big challenge. This is a significant obstacle that teams should try to overcome. There are concerns about controlling data accuracy, and it may be practically impossible to integrate databases composed of non-standardized data elements, coded in many different ways and in incompatible formats [45]. On the other hand, effective work on health promotion requires good quality of teamwork and coordination, both with colleagues in the same department as well as with those belonging to other disciplines and professions [46],[47].

The ideal team has certain essential characteristics: a common task or purpose, members are chosen because they have specific expertise, members know their own roles and the roles of other members, members support each other in the task, members complement each other with their skills and knowledge, members must commit to fulfill the tasks, there is a leader who leads the team and takes responsibility [42]. Developing a clear purpose is an essential step for a successful partnership. The ability to maintain focus stems from a clear understanding of the team’s purpose [48]. Conversely, unclear priorities demotivate cooperation because the task seems too big. The engagement of educated moderators at strategic points, in order to promote good relations between team members, has proven to be useful [45]. Achieving success is a very important topic for the team as well as for the individuals in the team [49]. During team meetings, it is necessary to have a reflective discussion about what is being implemented well, where the barriers are, and how to overcome them. This is a good time to recognize the achievement of short-term goals by the participants, which should be celebrated, because it helps to develop a closer relationship between team members. Jansen [42] claims that it is very important to celebrate successes within the team because it can include monitoring the process of progress, assessing the level of commitment and participation, the level of realization of activities, and it can also measure outcomes, as well as the achievement of the original goals.

Leaders must lead their teams, motivate them, and plan and coordinate the field of work. Adequate qualifications are very important when appointing a team leader and are often related to experience and knowledge [50]. A conscientious team leader should take into account all the previous steps in building a strong collaboration, so as to achieve success in his/ her role [51]. Both team leaders and team members must possess knowledge and skills in communication, participation in meetings, managing paperwork, time management, and group work [42].

There benefits of a multidisciplinary approach to health promotion are numerous. A health promotion team is able to bring together public or private health promotion organizations and groups, whereby teamwork increases the knowledge of those organizations, helping to clarify one’s own roles in the team and overcome rivalry [42]. Through this process, collaboration provides a wider range of knowledge and experiences, which come from all of the professionals who are a part of the team [52]. Working together provides another important advantage. Namely, teamwork enables access to the networks of all public health partners in the local community, which makes implementing activities, overcoming obstacles, and planning services based on a comprehensive insight into local needs, much easier [42]. Joint work and cooperation increase the level of job satisfaction for health promotion professionals because they strengthen morale within the team as a whole and provide mutual support to team members in their work [53].

CONCLUSION

Health promotion experts have long since recognized the benefits of multidisciplinary work, despite the obstacles that may arise, because the preservation and improvement of health is more than the mere absence or treatment of disease, and health promotion requires the interest and work of numerous professional groups and sectors. Multidisciplinary teamwork is a prerequisite for effective achievements in health promotion. In health promotion, there is an established consensus about the characteristics of successful cooperation, while practical experiences of multidisciplinary experts in health promotion are supported by research studies.

  • Conflict of interest:
    None declared.

Informations

September 2023

Pages 293-302
  • Keywords:
    health promotion, multidisciplinary, teamwork
  • Received:
    11 July 2023
  • Revised:
    19 July 2023
  • Accepted:
    20 July 2023
  • Online first:
    25 September 2023
  • DOI:
  • Cite this article:
    Boričić K, Tošić M, Šiljak S. A view of multidisciplinary health promotion teams. Serbian Journal of the Medical Chamber. 2023;4(3):293-302. doi: 10.5937/smclk4-45438
Corresponding author

Katarina Boričić
Institute of Public Health of Serbia Dr Milan Jovanović Batut
5 Dr Subotića Street, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


1. Gottwald M. Health promotion models. In Davis S, editor. Rehabilitation: the use of theories and models in practice. Edinburgh: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone; 2006. p. 131-146. [CROSSREF]

2. Koelen MA, Vaandrager L, Wagemakers A. The Healthy ALLiances (HALL) framework: prerequisites for success. Fam Pract. 2012 Apr;29 Suppl 1:i132-i138. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmr088. [CROSSREF]

3. Baron-Epel O, Drach-Zahavy A, Peleg H. Health promotion partnerships in Israel: motives, enhancing and inhibiting factors, and modes of structure. Health Promot Int. 2003 Mar;18(1):15-23. doi: 10.1093/heapro/18.1.15. [CROSSREF]

4. Butterfoss FD, Goodman RM, Wandersman A. Community coalitions for prevention and health promotion: factors predicting satisfaction, participation, and planning. Health Educ Q. 1996 Feb;23(1):65-79. doi: 10.1177/109019819602300105. [CROSSREF]

5. World Health Organization. Ottawa charter for health promotion. Geneva: WHO; 1986. [HTTP]

6. Pike S, Forster D. Health Promotion for All. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1995.

7. Armstrong R, Doyle J, Lamb C, Waters E. Multi-sectoral health promotion and public health: the role of evidence. J Public Health (Oxf). 2006 Jun;28(2):168-72. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdl013. [CROSSREF]

8. Martin V, Charlesworth J, Henderson E. Managing in Health and Social Care. 2nd ed. London: Routledge; 2010. [CROSSREF]

9. Naidoo J, Wills J. Public health and health promotion: developing practice. 3th ed. Edinburgh: Baillière Tindall Elsevier; 2010.

10. Berridge V. Multidisciplinary public health: what sort of victory? Public Health. 2007 Jun;121(6):404-8. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2007.02.004. [CROSSREF]

11. Naidoo J, Wills J. Health Promotion: Foundations for Practice. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: Baillière Tindall Elsevier; 2009.

12. Davies M, Macdowall W. Health Promotion Theory. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2006.

13. Whitehead D. The Health Promoting University (HPU): the role and function of nursing. Nurse Educ Today. 2004 Aug;24(6):466-72. doi: 10.1016/j. nedt.2004.05.003. [CROSSREF]

14. Kapelus G, Karim R, Pimento B, Ferrara G, Ross C. Interprofessional health promotion field placement: applied learning through the collaborative practice of health promotion. J Interprof Care. 2009 Jul;23(4):410-3. doi: 10.1080/13561820802432364. [CROSSREF]

15. Rosen MA, DiazGranados D, Dietz AS, Benishek LE, Thompson D, Pronovost PJ, et al. Teamwork in healthcare: Key discoveries enabling safer, high-quality care. Am Psychol. 2018 May-Jun;73(4):433-450. doi: 10.1037/ amp0000298. [CROSSREF]

16. Das TK, Teng BS. Alliance constellations: a social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Review.2002;27(3): 445-56. doi: 10.2307/4134389. [CROSSREF]

17. Wiggins B, Anastasiou K, Cox DN. A Systematic Review of Key Factors in the Effectiveness of Multisector Alliances in the Public Health Domain. Am J Health Promot. 2021 Jan;35(1):93-105. doi: 10.1177/0890117120928789. [CROSSREF]

18. Provan KG, Sebastian JG. Networks within networks: service link overlap, organizational cliques, and network effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal. 1998;41(4):453-63. doi: 10.2307/257084. [CROSSREF]

19. Orme J, de Viggiani N, Naidoo J, Knight T. Missed opportunities? Locating health promotion within multidisciplinary public health. Public Health. 2007 Jun;121(6):414-9. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2007.02.005. [CROSSREF]

20. Gillies P. Effectiveness of alliances and partnerships for health promotion. Health Promot Int. 1998;13(2):99-120. doi: 10.1093/heapro/13.2.99. [CROSSREF]

21. Drach-Zahavy A, Baron-Epel O. Health promotion teams’ effectiveness: a structural perspective from Israel. Health Promot Int. 2006 Sep;21(3):181- 90. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dal019. [CROSSREF]

22. Moon H, Hollenbeck JR, Humphrey SE, Ilgen DR, West B, Ellis APJ, et al. Asymmetric adaptability: dynamic team structures as one-way streets. The Academy of Management Journal. 2004; 47(5): 681-96. doi: 10.2307/20159611. [CROSSREF]

23. Leach B, Morgan P, Strand de Oliveira J, Hull S, Østbye T, Everett C. Primary care multidisciplinary teams in practice: a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2017 Dec 29;18(1):115. doi: 10.1186/s12875-017-0701-6. [CROSSREF]

24. Schor A, Bergovoy-Yellin L, Landsberger D, Kolobov T, Baron-Epel O. Multidisciplinary work promotes preventive medicine and health education in primary care: a cross-sectional survey. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2019 Jun 6;8(1):50. doi: 10.1186/s13584-019-0318-4. [CROSSREF]

25. Roussos ST, Fawcett SB. A review of collaborative partnerships as a strategy for improving community health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:369- 402. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.21.1.369. [CROSSREF]

26. Bell ST, Villado AJ, Lukasik MA, Belau L, Briggs AL. Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: a meta-analysis. J Manage. 2011;37(3):709-43. doi: 10.1177/0149206310365001. [CROSSREF]

27. Gruenfeld DH, Mannix EA, Williams KY, Neale MA. Group composition and decision making: how member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1996;67(1):1-15. doi: 10.1006/OBHD.1996.0061. [CROSSREF]

28. Jackson SE, Joshi A, Erhardt NL. Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. J Manage. 2003;29:801-30. doi: 10.1016/S0149-2063_03_00080-1. [CROSSREF]

29. Rubin IM, Beckhard R. Factors influencing the effectiveness of health teams. Milbank Mem Fund Q. 1972 Jul;50(3):317-35. [CROSSREF]

30. Johnson A, Nguyen H, Groth M, White L. Reaping the rewards of functional diversity in healthcare teams: why team processes improve performance. Group Organ Manag. 2018 Jun 1;43(3):440-74. doi: 10.1177/1059601118769192. [CROSSREF]

31. Jehn KA. A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Adm Sci Q. 1997;42(3):530-57. doi: 10.2307/2393737. [CROSSREF]

32. de Wit FR, Greer LL, Jehn KA. The paradox of intragroup conflict: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2012 Mar;97(2):360-90. doi: 10.1037/a0024844. [CROSSREF]

33. O’Neill TA, Allen NJ, Hastings SE. Examining the ‘‘pros’’ and ‘‘cons’’ of team conflict: a team-level meta-analysis of task, relationship, and process conflict. Hum Perform. 2013;26(3):236-60. doi: 10.1080/08959285.2013.795573. [CROSSREF]

34. O’Neill TA, McLarnon MJ, Hoffart GC, Woodley HJ, Allen NJ. The structure and function of team conflict state profiles. J Manage. 2018;44(2):811-36. doi: 10.1177/0149206315581662. [CROSSREF]

35. Edmondson A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q. 1999;44(2):350-83. doi: 10.2307/2666999. [CROSSREF]

36. Edmondson AC, Lei Z. Psychological safety: the history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annu Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav. 2014;1(1):23-43. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305. [CROSSREF]

37. Nembhard IM, Edmondson AC. Making it safe: the effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. J Organ Behav. 2006;27(7):941-66. doi: 10.1002/job.413. [CROSSREF]

38. Dunn AM, Scott C, Allen JA, Bonilla D. Quantity and quality: increasing safety norms through after action reviews. Hum Relat. 2016;69(5):1209-32. doi: 10.1177/0018726715609972. 39. Keiser NL, Arthur W. A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the after-action review (or debrief) and factors that influence its effectiveness. J Appl Psychol. 2021 Jul;106(7):1007-1032. doi: 10.1037/apl0000821. [CROSSREF]

40. Miller CJ, Kim B, Silverman A, Bauer MS. A systematic review of team-building interventions in non-acute healthcare settings. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Mar 1;18(1):146. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-2961-9. [CROSSREF]

41. Rico R, Sa´nchez-Manzanares M, Gil F, Gibson C. Team implicit coordination processes: a team knowledge–based approach. Acad Manage Rev. 2008;33(1):163-84. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2008.27751276. [CROSSREF]

42. Jansen L. Collaborative and interdisciplinary health care teams: ready or not? J Prof Nurs. 2008 Jul-Aug;24(4):218-27. doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2007.06.013. [CROSSREF]

43. Heitkemper M, McGrath B, Killien M, Jarrett M, Landis C, Lentz M, et al. The role of centers in fostering interdisciplinary research. Nurs Outlook. 2008 May-Jun;56(3):115-122.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2008.03.008. [CROSSREF]

44. Scriven A, Orme J. Health Promotion Professional Perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Education UK; 2001. [CROSSREF]

45. Bracht N, editor. Health promotion at the community level: New advance. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 1999. [CROSSREF]

46. Omer K, Mhatre S, Ansari N, Laucirica J, Andersson N. Evidence-based training of frontline health workers for door-to-door health promotion: a pilot randomized controlled cluster trial with Lady Health Workers in Sindh Province, Pakistan. Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Aug;72(2):178-85. doi: 10.1016/j. pec.2008.02.018. [CROSSREF]

47. Wagemakers A, Vaandrager L, Koelen MA, Saan H, Leeuwis C. Community health promotion: a framework to facilitate and evaluate supportive social environments for health. Eval Program Plann. 2010 Nov;33(4):428-35. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.12.008. [CROSSREF]

48. Fleming ML, Parker E, Gould T, Service M. Educating the public health workforce: Issues and challenges. Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2009 Apr 9;6:8. doi: 10.1186/1743-8462-6-8. [CROSSREF]

49. Levy M, Gentry D, Klesges LM. Innovations in public health education: promoting professional development and a culture of health. Am J Public Health. 2015 Mar;105 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S44-5. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302351. [CROSSREF]

50. Koh HK. Educating future public health leaders. Am J Public Health. 2015 Mar;105 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S11-3. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302385. [CROSSREF]

51. Koh HK, Nowinski JM, Piotrowski JJ. A 2020 vision for educating the next generation of public health leaders. Am J Prev Med. 2011 Feb;40(2):199-202. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.09.018. [CROSSREF]

52. Jansen MW, De Vries NK, Kok G, Van Oers HA. Collaboration between practice, policy and research in local public health in the Netherlands. Health Policy. 2008 May;86(2-3):295-307. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.11.005. [CROSSREF]

53. Hosman CM, Clayton R. Prevention and health promotion on the international scene: the need for a more effective and comprehensive approach. Addict Behav. 2000 Nov-Dec;25(6):943-54. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4603(00)00127-1. [CROSSREF]


REFERENCES

1. Gottwald M. Health promotion models. In Davis S, editor. Rehabilitation: the use of theories and models in practice. Edinburgh: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone; 2006. p. 131-146. [CROSSREF]

2. Koelen MA, Vaandrager L, Wagemakers A. The Healthy ALLiances (HALL) framework: prerequisites for success. Fam Pract. 2012 Apr;29 Suppl 1:i132-i138. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmr088. [CROSSREF]

3. Baron-Epel O, Drach-Zahavy A, Peleg H. Health promotion partnerships in Israel: motives, enhancing and inhibiting factors, and modes of structure. Health Promot Int. 2003 Mar;18(1):15-23. doi: 10.1093/heapro/18.1.15. [CROSSREF]

4. Butterfoss FD, Goodman RM, Wandersman A. Community coalitions for prevention and health promotion: factors predicting satisfaction, participation, and planning. Health Educ Q. 1996 Feb;23(1):65-79. doi: 10.1177/109019819602300105. [CROSSREF]

5. World Health Organization. Ottawa charter for health promotion. Geneva: WHO; 1986. [HTTP]

6. Pike S, Forster D. Health Promotion for All. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1995.

7. Armstrong R, Doyle J, Lamb C, Waters E. Multi-sectoral health promotion and public health: the role of evidence. J Public Health (Oxf). 2006 Jun;28(2):168-72. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdl013. [CROSSREF]

8. Martin V, Charlesworth J, Henderson E. Managing in Health and Social Care. 2nd ed. London: Routledge; 2010. [CROSSREF]

9. Naidoo J, Wills J. Public health and health promotion: developing practice. 3th ed. Edinburgh: Baillière Tindall Elsevier; 2010.

10. Berridge V. Multidisciplinary public health: what sort of victory? Public Health. 2007 Jun;121(6):404-8. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2007.02.004. [CROSSREF]

11. Naidoo J, Wills J. Health Promotion: Foundations for Practice. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: Baillière Tindall Elsevier; 2009.

12. Davies M, Macdowall W. Health Promotion Theory. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2006.

13. Whitehead D. The Health Promoting University (HPU): the role and function of nursing. Nurse Educ Today. 2004 Aug;24(6):466-72. doi: 10.1016/j. nedt.2004.05.003. [CROSSREF]

14. Kapelus G, Karim R, Pimento B, Ferrara G, Ross C. Interprofessional health promotion field placement: applied learning through the collaborative practice of health promotion. J Interprof Care. 2009 Jul;23(4):410-3. doi: 10.1080/13561820802432364. [CROSSREF]

15. Rosen MA, DiazGranados D, Dietz AS, Benishek LE, Thompson D, Pronovost PJ, et al. Teamwork in healthcare: Key discoveries enabling safer, high-quality care. Am Psychol. 2018 May-Jun;73(4):433-450. doi: 10.1037/ amp0000298. [CROSSREF]

16. Das TK, Teng BS. Alliance constellations: a social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Review.2002;27(3): 445-56. doi: 10.2307/4134389. [CROSSREF]

17. Wiggins B, Anastasiou K, Cox DN. A Systematic Review of Key Factors in the Effectiveness of Multisector Alliances in the Public Health Domain. Am J Health Promot. 2021 Jan;35(1):93-105. doi: 10.1177/0890117120928789. [CROSSREF]

18. Provan KG, Sebastian JG. Networks within networks: service link overlap, organizational cliques, and network effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal. 1998;41(4):453-63. doi: 10.2307/257084. [CROSSREF]

19. Orme J, de Viggiani N, Naidoo J, Knight T. Missed opportunities? Locating health promotion within multidisciplinary public health. Public Health. 2007 Jun;121(6):414-9. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2007.02.005. [CROSSREF]

20. Gillies P. Effectiveness of alliances and partnerships for health promotion. Health Promot Int. 1998;13(2):99-120. doi: 10.1093/heapro/13.2.99. [CROSSREF]

21. Drach-Zahavy A, Baron-Epel O. Health promotion teams’ effectiveness: a structural perspective from Israel. Health Promot Int. 2006 Sep;21(3):181- 90. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dal019. [CROSSREF]

22. Moon H, Hollenbeck JR, Humphrey SE, Ilgen DR, West B, Ellis APJ, et al. Asymmetric adaptability: dynamic team structures as one-way streets. The Academy of Management Journal. 2004; 47(5): 681-96. doi: 10.2307/20159611. [CROSSREF]

23. Leach B, Morgan P, Strand de Oliveira J, Hull S, Østbye T, Everett C. Primary care multidisciplinary teams in practice: a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2017 Dec 29;18(1):115. doi: 10.1186/s12875-017-0701-6. [CROSSREF]

24. Schor A, Bergovoy-Yellin L, Landsberger D, Kolobov T, Baron-Epel O. Multidisciplinary work promotes preventive medicine and health education in primary care: a cross-sectional survey. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2019 Jun 6;8(1):50. doi: 10.1186/s13584-019-0318-4. [CROSSREF]

25. Roussos ST, Fawcett SB. A review of collaborative partnerships as a strategy for improving community health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:369- 402. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.21.1.369. [CROSSREF]

26. Bell ST, Villado AJ, Lukasik MA, Belau L, Briggs AL. Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: a meta-analysis. J Manage. 2011;37(3):709-43. doi: 10.1177/0149206310365001. [CROSSREF]

27. Gruenfeld DH, Mannix EA, Williams KY, Neale MA. Group composition and decision making: how member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1996;67(1):1-15. doi: 10.1006/OBHD.1996.0061. [CROSSREF]

28. Jackson SE, Joshi A, Erhardt NL. Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. J Manage. 2003;29:801-30. doi: 10.1016/S0149-2063_03_00080-1. [CROSSREF]

29. Rubin IM, Beckhard R. Factors influencing the effectiveness of health teams. Milbank Mem Fund Q. 1972 Jul;50(3):317-35. [CROSSREF]

30. Johnson A, Nguyen H, Groth M, White L. Reaping the rewards of functional diversity in healthcare teams: why team processes improve performance. Group Organ Manag. 2018 Jun 1;43(3):440-74. doi: 10.1177/1059601118769192. [CROSSREF]

31. Jehn KA. A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Adm Sci Q. 1997;42(3):530-57. doi: 10.2307/2393737. [CROSSREF]

32. de Wit FR, Greer LL, Jehn KA. The paradox of intragroup conflict: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2012 Mar;97(2):360-90. doi: 10.1037/a0024844. [CROSSREF]

33. O’Neill TA, Allen NJ, Hastings SE. Examining the ‘‘pros’’ and ‘‘cons’’ of team conflict: a team-level meta-analysis of task, relationship, and process conflict. Hum Perform. 2013;26(3):236-60. doi: 10.1080/08959285.2013.795573. [CROSSREF]

34. O’Neill TA, McLarnon MJ, Hoffart GC, Woodley HJ, Allen NJ. The structure and function of team conflict state profiles. J Manage. 2018;44(2):811-36. doi: 10.1177/0149206315581662. [CROSSREF]

35. Edmondson A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q. 1999;44(2):350-83. doi: 10.2307/2666999. [CROSSREF]

36. Edmondson AC, Lei Z. Psychological safety: the history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annu Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav. 2014;1(1):23-43. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305. [CROSSREF]

37. Nembhard IM, Edmondson AC. Making it safe: the effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. J Organ Behav. 2006;27(7):941-66. doi: 10.1002/job.413. [CROSSREF]

38. Dunn AM, Scott C, Allen JA, Bonilla D. Quantity and quality: increasing safety norms through after action reviews. Hum Relat. 2016;69(5):1209-32. doi: 10.1177/0018726715609972. 39. Keiser NL, Arthur W. A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the after-action review (or debrief) and factors that influence its effectiveness. J Appl Psychol. 2021 Jul;106(7):1007-1032. doi: 10.1037/apl0000821. [CROSSREF]

40. Miller CJ, Kim B, Silverman A, Bauer MS. A systematic review of team-building interventions in non-acute healthcare settings. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Mar 1;18(1):146. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-2961-9. [CROSSREF]

41. Rico R, Sa´nchez-Manzanares M, Gil F, Gibson C. Team implicit coordination processes: a team knowledge–based approach. Acad Manage Rev. 2008;33(1):163-84. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2008.27751276. [CROSSREF]

42. Jansen L. Collaborative and interdisciplinary health care teams: ready or not? J Prof Nurs. 2008 Jul-Aug;24(4):218-27. doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2007.06.013. [CROSSREF]

43. Heitkemper M, McGrath B, Killien M, Jarrett M, Landis C, Lentz M, et al. The role of centers in fostering interdisciplinary research. Nurs Outlook. 2008 May-Jun;56(3):115-122.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2008.03.008. [CROSSREF]

44. Scriven A, Orme J. Health Promotion Professional Perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Education UK; 2001. [CROSSREF]

45. Bracht N, editor. Health promotion at the community level: New advance. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 1999. [CROSSREF]

46. Omer K, Mhatre S, Ansari N, Laucirica J, Andersson N. Evidence-based training of frontline health workers for door-to-door health promotion: a pilot randomized controlled cluster trial with Lady Health Workers in Sindh Province, Pakistan. Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Aug;72(2):178-85. doi: 10.1016/j. pec.2008.02.018. [CROSSREF]

47. Wagemakers A, Vaandrager L, Koelen MA, Saan H, Leeuwis C. Community health promotion: a framework to facilitate and evaluate supportive social environments for health. Eval Program Plann. 2010 Nov;33(4):428-35. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.12.008. [CROSSREF]

48. Fleming ML, Parker E, Gould T, Service M. Educating the public health workforce: Issues and challenges. Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2009 Apr 9;6:8. doi: 10.1186/1743-8462-6-8. [CROSSREF]

49. Levy M, Gentry D, Klesges LM. Innovations in public health education: promoting professional development and a culture of health. Am J Public Health. 2015 Mar;105 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S44-5. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302351. [CROSSREF]

50. Koh HK. Educating future public health leaders. Am J Public Health. 2015 Mar;105 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S11-3. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302385. [CROSSREF]

51. Koh HK, Nowinski JM, Piotrowski JJ. A 2020 vision for educating the next generation of public health leaders. Am J Prev Med. 2011 Feb;40(2):199-202. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.09.018. [CROSSREF]

52. Jansen MW, De Vries NK, Kok G, Van Oers HA. Collaboration between practice, policy and research in local public health in the Netherlands. Health Policy. 2008 May;86(2-3):295-307. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.11.005. [CROSSREF]

53. Hosman CM, Clayton R. Prevention and health promotion on the international scene: the need for a more effective and comprehensive approach. Addict Behav. 2000 Nov-Dec;25(6):943-54. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4603(00)00127-1. [CROSSREF]

1. Gottwald M. Health promotion models. In Davis S, editor. Rehabilitation: the use of theories and models in practice. Edinburgh: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone; 2006. p. 131-146. [CROSSREF]

2. Koelen MA, Vaandrager L, Wagemakers A. The Healthy ALLiances (HALL) framework: prerequisites for success. Fam Pract. 2012 Apr;29 Suppl 1:i132-i138. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmr088. [CROSSREF]

3. Baron-Epel O, Drach-Zahavy A, Peleg H. Health promotion partnerships in Israel: motives, enhancing and inhibiting factors, and modes of structure. Health Promot Int. 2003 Mar;18(1):15-23. doi: 10.1093/heapro/18.1.15. [CROSSREF]

4. Butterfoss FD, Goodman RM, Wandersman A. Community coalitions for prevention and health promotion: factors predicting satisfaction, participation, and planning. Health Educ Q. 1996 Feb;23(1):65-79. doi: 10.1177/109019819602300105. [CROSSREF]

5. World Health Organization. Ottawa charter for health promotion. Geneva: WHO; 1986. [HTTP]

6. Pike S, Forster D. Health Promotion for All. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1995.

7. Armstrong R, Doyle J, Lamb C, Waters E. Multi-sectoral health promotion and public health: the role of evidence. J Public Health (Oxf). 2006 Jun;28(2):168-72. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdl013. [CROSSREF]

8. Martin V, Charlesworth J, Henderson E. Managing in Health and Social Care. 2nd ed. London: Routledge; 2010. [CROSSREF]

9. Naidoo J, Wills J. Public health and health promotion: developing practice. 3th ed. Edinburgh: Baillière Tindall Elsevier; 2010.

10. Berridge V. Multidisciplinary public health: what sort of victory? Public Health. 2007 Jun;121(6):404-8. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2007.02.004. [CROSSREF]

11. Naidoo J, Wills J. Health Promotion: Foundations for Practice. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: Baillière Tindall Elsevier; 2009.

12. Davies M, Macdowall W. Health Promotion Theory. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2006.

13. Whitehead D. The Health Promoting University (HPU): the role and function of nursing. Nurse Educ Today. 2004 Aug;24(6):466-72. doi: 10.1016/j. nedt.2004.05.003. [CROSSREF]

14. Kapelus G, Karim R, Pimento B, Ferrara G, Ross C. Interprofessional health promotion field placement: applied learning through the collaborative practice of health promotion. J Interprof Care. 2009 Jul;23(4):410-3. doi: 10.1080/13561820802432364. [CROSSREF]

15. Rosen MA, DiazGranados D, Dietz AS, Benishek LE, Thompson D, Pronovost PJ, et al. Teamwork in healthcare: Key discoveries enabling safer, high-quality care. Am Psychol. 2018 May-Jun;73(4):433-450. doi: 10.1037/ amp0000298. [CROSSREF]

16. Das TK, Teng BS. Alliance constellations: a social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Review.2002;27(3): 445-56. doi: 10.2307/4134389. [CROSSREF]

17. Wiggins B, Anastasiou K, Cox DN. A Systematic Review of Key Factors in the Effectiveness of Multisector Alliances in the Public Health Domain. Am J Health Promot. 2021 Jan;35(1):93-105. doi: 10.1177/0890117120928789. [CROSSREF]

18. Provan KG, Sebastian JG. Networks within networks: service link overlap, organizational cliques, and network effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal. 1998;41(4):453-63. doi: 10.2307/257084. [CROSSREF]

19. Orme J, de Viggiani N, Naidoo J, Knight T. Missed opportunities? Locating health promotion within multidisciplinary public health. Public Health. 2007 Jun;121(6):414-9. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2007.02.005. [CROSSREF]

20. Gillies P. Effectiveness of alliances and partnerships for health promotion. Health Promot Int. 1998;13(2):99-120. doi: 10.1093/heapro/13.2.99. [CROSSREF]

21. Drach-Zahavy A, Baron-Epel O. Health promotion teams’ effectiveness: a structural perspective from Israel. Health Promot Int. 2006 Sep;21(3):181- 90. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dal019. [CROSSREF]

22. Moon H, Hollenbeck JR, Humphrey SE, Ilgen DR, West B, Ellis APJ, et al. Asymmetric adaptability: dynamic team structures as one-way streets. The Academy of Management Journal. 2004; 47(5): 681-96. doi: 10.2307/20159611. [CROSSREF]

23. Leach B, Morgan P, Strand de Oliveira J, Hull S, Østbye T, Everett C. Primary care multidisciplinary teams in practice: a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2017 Dec 29;18(1):115. doi: 10.1186/s12875-017-0701-6. [CROSSREF]

24. Schor A, Bergovoy-Yellin L, Landsberger D, Kolobov T, Baron-Epel O. Multidisciplinary work promotes preventive medicine and health education in primary care: a cross-sectional survey. Isr J Health Policy Res. 2019 Jun 6;8(1):50. doi: 10.1186/s13584-019-0318-4. [CROSSREF]

25. Roussos ST, Fawcett SB. A review of collaborative partnerships as a strategy for improving community health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:369- 402. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.21.1.369. [CROSSREF]

26. Bell ST, Villado AJ, Lukasik MA, Belau L, Briggs AL. Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: a meta-analysis. J Manage. 2011;37(3):709-43. doi: 10.1177/0149206310365001. [CROSSREF]

27. Gruenfeld DH, Mannix EA, Williams KY, Neale MA. Group composition and decision making: how member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1996;67(1):1-15. doi: 10.1006/OBHD.1996.0061. [CROSSREF]

28. Jackson SE, Joshi A, Erhardt NL. Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. J Manage. 2003;29:801-30. doi: 10.1016/S0149-2063_03_00080-1. [CROSSREF]

29. Rubin IM, Beckhard R. Factors influencing the effectiveness of health teams. Milbank Mem Fund Q. 1972 Jul;50(3):317-35. [CROSSREF]

30. Johnson A, Nguyen H, Groth M, White L. Reaping the rewards of functional diversity in healthcare teams: why team processes improve performance. Group Organ Manag. 2018 Jun 1;43(3):440-74. doi: 10.1177/1059601118769192. [CROSSREF]

31. Jehn KA. A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Adm Sci Q. 1997;42(3):530-57. doi: 10.2307/2393737. [CROSSREF]

32. de Wit FR, Greer LL, Jehn KA. The paradox of intragroup conflict: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2012 Mar;97(2):360-90. doi: 10.1037/a0024844. [CROSSREF]

33. O’Neill TA, Allen NJ, Hastings SE. Examining the ‘‘pros’’ and ‘‘cons’’ of team conflict: a team-level meta-analysis of task, relationship, and process conflict. Hum Perform. 2013;26(3):236-60. doi: 10.1080/08959285.2013.795573. [CROSSREF]

34. O’Neill TA, McLarnon MJ, Hoffart GC, Woodley HJ, Allen NJ. The structure and function of team conflict state profiles. J Manage. 2018;44(2):811-36. doi: 10.1177/0149206315581662. [CROSSREF]

35. Edmondson A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q. 1999;44(2):350-83. doi: 10.2307/2666999. [CROSSREF]

36. Edmondson AC, Lei Z. Psychological safety: the history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annu Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav. 2014;1(1):23-43. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305. [CROSSREF]

37. Nembhard IM, Edmondson AC. Making it safe: the effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. J Organ Behav. 2006;27(7):941-66. doi: 10.1002/job.413. [CROSSREF]

38. Dunn AM, Scott C, Allen JA, Bonilla D. Quantity and quality: increasing safety norms through after action reviews. Hum Relat. 2016;69(5):1209-32. doi: 10.1177/0018726715609972. 39. Keiser NL, Arthur W. A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the after-action review (or debrief) and factors that influence its effectiveness. J Appl Psychol. 2021 Jul;106(7):1007-1032. doi: 10.1037/apl0000821. [CROSSREF]

40. Miller CJ, Kim B, Silverman A, Bauer MS. A systematic review of team-building interventions in non-acute healthcare settings. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Mar 1;18(1):146. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-2961-9. [CROSSREF]

41. Rico R, Sa´nchez-Manzanares M, Gil F, Gibson C. Team implicit coordination processes: a team knowledge–based approach. Acad Manage Rev. 2008;33(1):163-84. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2008.27751276. [CROSSREF]

42. Jansen L. Collaborative and interdisciplinary health care teams: ready or not? J Prof Nurs. 2008 Jul-Aug;24(4):218-27. doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2007.06.013. [CROSSREF]

43. Heitkemper M, McGrath B, Killien M, Jarrett M, Landis C, Lentz M, et al. The role of centers in fostering interdisciplinary research. Nurs Outlook. 2008 May-Jun;56(3):115-122.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2008.03.008. [CROSSREF]

44. Scriven A, Orme J. Health Promotion Professional Perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Education UK; 2001. [CROSSREF]

45. Bracht N, editor. Health promotion at the community level: New advance. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 1999. [CROSSREF]

46. Omer K, Mhatre S, Ansari N, Laucirica J, Andersson N. Evidence-based training of frontline health workers for door-to-door health promotion: a pilot randomized controlled cluster trial with Lady Health Workers in Sindh Province, Pakistan. Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Aug;72(2):178-85. doi: 10.1016/j. pec.2008.02.018. [CROSSREF]

47. Wagemakers A, Vaandrager L, Koelen MA, Saan H, Leeuwis C. Community health promotion: a framework to facilitate and evaluate supportive social environments for health. Eval Program Plann. 2010 Nov;33(4):428-35. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.12.008. [CROSSREF]

48. Fleming ML, Parker E, Gould T, Service M. Educating the public health workforce: Issues and challenges. Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2009 Apr 9;6:8. doi: 10.1186/1743-8462-6-8. [CROSSREF]

49. Levy M, Gentry D, Klesges LM. Innovations in public health education: promoting professional development and a culture of health. Am J Public Health. 2015 Mar;105 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S44-5. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302351. [CROSSREF]

50. Koh HK. Educating future public health leaders. Am J Public Health. 2015 Mar;105 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S11-3. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302385. [CROSSREF]

51. Koh HK, Nowinski JM, Piotrowski JJ. A 2020 vision for educating the next generation of public health leaders. Am J Prev Med. 2011 Feb;40(2):199-202. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.09.018. [CROSSREF]

52. Jansen MW, De Vries NK, Kok G, Van Oers HA. Collaboration between practice, policy and research in local public health in the Netherlands. Health Policy. 2008 May;86(2-3):295-307. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.11.005. [CROSSREF]

53. Hosman CM, Clayton R. Prevention and health promotion on the international scene: the need for a more effective and comprehensive approach. Addict Behav. 2000 Nov-Dec;25(6):943-54. doi: 10.1016/s0306-4603(00)00127-1. [CROSSREF]


© All rights reserved. Medical Chamber of Serbia.

To top