ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Challenges and enablers of collaborative working in the voluntary, community, social, faith and enterprise sector: impact, effectiveness, and sustainability.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Voluntary, Community, Social, and Faith Enterprise (VCSFE) organisations play a vital role in supporting local health and care needs, particularly among underserved communities. However, they can often operate in isolation, making it difficult for vulnerable populations to access coordinated support. Luton Public Health led a pilot called the Collaboration Fund that encouraged joint working among selected VCSFE organisations, delivering services that tackle health inequalities. The evaluation of the Collaboration Fund assessed the impact, effectiveness, and sustainability of this collaborative approach in addressing system approach to improving health outcomes. Methods: A parallel mixed-methods design was adopted to evaluate this collaborative approach among VCSFE organisations funded by the Collaboration Fund in Luton. Impact was assessed using quantitative data from five lead organisations. Effectiveness and sustainability were explored by conducting 13 qualitative interviews with project leads and managers. Descriptive statistics and geospatial mapping were used for quantitative analysis, and qualitative data were thematically analysed using Framework Analysis in NVivo v.20. Findings: The impact findings highlighted that 7,177 service users accessed services, mainly by women and those living in Luton's most deprived wards. The effectiveness of working collaboratively improved service delivery through shared resources, co-designed services, and increased community trust and engagement. However, challenges included overlapping roles, limited communication, and a lack of diverse staff among a few of the organisations (One lead organisation and their three partner organisations). Sustainability was impeded by funding constraints, with stakeholders recommending stronger networks, shared outreach platforms, and improved visibility of the local VCSFE services to maintain and enhance collaboration. Conclusion: The Collaboration Fund enhanced inclusive, community-based services through strong partnerships, multilingual outreach, and creative engagement, improving access and reducing isolation among marginalised groups. Collaboration was most effective when organisations with strong community representation partnered with less diverse ones. Sustaining progress requires continued investment, resource sharing, and strategic support to deliver collaboration and address inequalities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.