The paper by Turner and colleagues is an inspiring take on how cross-sectoral COLLABORATION can be accomplished, in the context of the jointly shared emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors review the experience of three cities in Columbia and their efforts to share knowledge and resources as well as coordinate responses to COVID-19 across governmental healthcare organizations, private sector institutions, and universities. Because these entities are typically thought to differ mission, incentives, and objectives, this careful examination of factors that enabled or impeded coordination generated novel insights that may be helpful in less urgent but still pressing healthcare needs in the future.

Background: The implementation of health interventions requires the COLLABORATION of various sectors outside health due to the multidimensional nature of healthcare. Building effective partnerships demands the use of INTERSECTORAL mechanisms that facilitate the leadership and implementation of these programs. In this review, the mechanisms of INTERSECTORAL COLLABORATION (ISC) and their results were identified. Methods: This scoping review was conducted in 2020. Using relevant keywords, all documents related to ISC in the health system were identified by searching four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, and Web of Science), Google, and Google scholar search engines. In the initial search, 2911 documents were extracted. Based on the selection criteria 52 documents were selected for content analysis. Results: Five areas of ISC were identified, including funding (collection, pooling, and distribution of funds), governance and leadership (political commitment, rules and regulations, control and evaluation, and stakeholder engagement), structural mechanisms (interorganizational, government-based, and program-based structures), process tools (information tools, support tools, and resource and service sharing), and models and frameworks (general, national, and program-specific models). Conclusion: An INTERSECTORAL framework or model be developed that considers the financial, structural, and leadership aspects as well as the necessary process tools required for each program. Moreover, it should be considered communication and human resources empowerment in each intervention.

Residency areas are primary social factors that directly and indirectly affect health and in synergy with other factors, changes health equity indices. Qazvin as one of the provinces in the Islamic Republic of Iran has been a pioneer in the provision of an integrated health program with INTERSECTORAL COLLABORATION approach and the participation of residents. In this study required data was gathered in a qualitative method by reviewing documents, group discussions with stakeholders and residents and interviews with key informed individuals. In the beginning, stakeholder’ s analysis revealed highly effective organizations and their method of cooperation. Insufficient access to housing, weak security, insufficient swage system and deficiency of entertainment and park environment are four top urgent issues which are related to housing. Strategic goals for each issue has been designed in a four-year time frame and projects for reaching the goals that are considered in three categories: promotional, facilitator and mandatory. Cooperation of multiple stakeholders including managers and residents are features of preparing this program. A change of stakeholders’ perspective to health-oriented performance in housing is the added value of this public act.

Background: Health equity is considered as one of the main objectives of health care systems. This study was carried out with the aim of determining health equity indicators in Iran. Through consideration of these indicators, differences in health status of different social groups and different geographical areas can be shown in different periods and based on that, effective interventions can be designed. This study is carried out through a main workshop and expert panels and final consensus on selected indicators. The first draft of indicators and inequity stratifying variables were prepared and then revised by working groups consisting of experts inside and outside Health system. Finally ideas were accepted or rejected after presenting enough reasons and deep examination through the Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making (COMD) model. Fifty two indicators have been determined as health equity indicators in five areas including health, social and human development, economic development, physical environment and infrastructure and governance. Furthermore, for each indicator the proper and practical stratifying variables of inequity were identified. By calculating such indicators, it becomes possible to determine differences in health status of different social groups and different geographical areas.

Background: For sustainable development and resolve complex public health problems, INTERSECTORAL COLLABORATION is a necessity. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is one of the tools used to develop INTERSECTORAL interactions. In this study, the challenges in the development and implementation of MOUs and propose strategies to overcome these challenges were studied by collecting the views of some stakeholders from other organizations. Methods: For identifying challenges and solutions to improve the situation, group discussions were conducted with the presence of representatives from four ministries of Agriculture, Roads and Urban Development, Sports and Youth, and Education and the representatives of the Ministry of Health and Medical Education, who were responsible for preparing MOUs. All sessions were transcript and analyzed by using content analysis method. Results: Some challenges were defined according to the development and implementation of MOUs. For better implementation, suggested strategies were: Strengthening the stewardship of INTERSECTORAL COLLABORATION, effective and powerful management in monitoring the implementation of MOUs, Determining the appropriate financing path, strengthening individual and organizational capabilities in developing and implementing of MOUs, improving the terms and conditions of the implementing the MOUs. Conclusion: COLLABORATION with other sectors has now become one of the main issues in health systems. For better achievement, strengthening the stewardship of INTERSECTORAL COLLABORATION to effective coordination for drafting MOU, and facilitates and monitors the effective implementation of MOUs by identifying key people in each organization and empowering them is necessary.

Background: INTERSECTORAL COLLABORATION is critical to the successful implementation of many public health interventions (PHIs). Little attention has been paid to whether and how processes at the stage of evaluation can promote INTERSECTORAL COLLABORATION. The objective of this study was to examine European experiences and views on whether and how the evaluation of PHIs promote INTERSECTORAL COLLABORATION. Methods: A qualitative study design was used. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 individuals centrally involved in the evaluation of PHIs in 6 European countries (Austria, Denmark, England, Germany, Norway, and Switzerland). Questions pertained to current processes for evaluating PHIs in the country and current and potential strategies for promoting INTERSECTORAL COLLABORATION. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify key themes responding to our primary objective. Results: Experiences with promoting INTERSECTORAL COLLABORATION through the evaluation of PHIs could be summarized in 4 themes: (1) Early involvement of non-health sectors in the evaluative process and inclusion of non-health benefits can promote INTERSECTORAL COLLABORATION, but should be combined with greater influence of these sectors in shaping PHIs; (2) Harmonization of methodological approaches may enable comparison of results and facilitate INTERSECTORAL COLLABORATION, but should not be an overriding goal; (3) Involvement in health impact assessments (HIAs) can promote INTERSECTORAL COLLABORATION, but needs to be incentivized and be conducted without putting overwhelming demands on non-health sectors; (4) A designated body for evaluating PHIs may promote INTERSECTORAL COLLABORATION, but its design needs to take account of realities of policy-making. Conclusion: The full potential for promoting INTERSECTORAL COLLABORATION through the evaluation of PHIs appears currently unrealized in the settings we studied. To further promote INTERSECTORAL COLLABORATION, evaluators and decisionmakers may consider the full range of strategies characterized in this study. This may be most effective if the strategies are deployed so that they reinforce each other, value outcomes beyond health, and are tailored to maximize political priority for PHIs across sectors.