Table 1
Facilitators and barriers related to shared vision.
| FACILITATOR | DESCRIPTION | BARRIER | DESCRIPTION |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inclusive participation | Involving all stakeholders built trust and mutual understanding. | Competition among stakeholders | Differing expertise and priorities, especially financial, created tensions. |
| Transparent communication | Open dialogue aligned priorities and fostered common ground. | Exclusion of families and professionals | Top-down vision excluded key voices, causing a gap between policy and practice. |
| Shared commitment | Stakeholders’ willingness to collaborate enabled progress despite differences. | Misaligned interests | Diverging priorities, often financial or operational, overshadowed the vision. |
| Ongoing evaluation | Continuous reflection on the vision with all stakeholders. |
Table 2
Facilitators and barriers related to roles and responsibilities.
| FACILITATOR | DESCRIPTION | BARRIER | DESCRIPTION |
|---|---|---|---|
| Regular communication | Structured contact moments streamlined communication and coordination. | Ambiguity in leadership | Lack of clear guidance left professionals uncertain about frameworks. |
| Local government representatives | A designated contact person promoted accountability and consistency. | Overlapping roles | Undefined responsibilities caused confusion and inefficiency in SITs. |
| Collaborative partnerships | Co-creation fostered shared responsibility and role clarity. | Fragmented policy support | Initiatives from practice often lacked policy/organisational backing, limiting scalability. |
Table 3
Facilitators and barriers related to monitoring and evaluation.
| FACILITATOR | DESCRIPTION | BARRIER | DESCRIPTION |
|---|---|---|---|
| Collaborative design | Early stakeholder involvement in designing monitoring and evaluation frameworks strengthened partnership and alignment. | Ambiguity in metrics | Unclear measurement goals led to misaligned priorities and tensions. |
| Balanced metrics | Combining KPIs with qualitative narratives gave a comprehensive view of impact. | Administrative burden | Divergent systems and reporting demands increased workload for professionals. |
| Open dialogue | Regular communication between stakeholders fostered trust and shared ownership of outcomes. | Feelings of control | Monitoring seen as intrusive evoked mistrust and weakened partnerships. |
Table 4
Facilitators and barriers related to financing of integrated care initiatives.
| FACILITATOR | DESCRIPTION | BARRIER | DESCRIPTION |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flexible funding models | Adaptive financing supported the evolving needs of integrated care initiatives. | Fragmented frameworks | Differences in funding structures caused gaps in coordination and delivery of care. |
| Transparency in agreements | Clear and open discussions about financial expectations built trust and reduced tensions. | Short-term focus | Demand for quick results undermined the long-term nature of integrated care outcomes. |
| Alignment of timelines | Longer funding cycles aligned with long-term goals, providing stability for organisations and professionals, while allowing timely adjustments. | Rigid funding periods | Fixed and short financial cycles limited responsiveness to families and practice needs. |