Collaborating in a Penta-Helix Structure within a CBPR Programme: “Wrestling with Hierarchies and Getting Caught in Downpipes”

Background: In the light of the existence of social inequalities in health, a CBPR (Community Based Participatory Research) programme for health promotion started in Malmö, Sweden, in 2017. The programme was based on a penta-helix structure and involved a strategic steering group with representatives from academia, voluntary organisations, the business sector, the public sector, and citizens from the geographical community where the programme took place. The aim of this study was to explore how the penta-helix collaboration worked out from the perspectives of all partners, including the citizens. Methods: Individual interviews, that were based on a guide for self-reection and evaluation of CBPR partnerships, were conducted with the representatives (N= 13) on three occasions, during the period 2017-2019. A qualitative content analysis was used to analyse the interviews. Results: Six themes emerged from the analysis including Challenges for the partners in the penta-helix collaboration; Challenges for the professionals at the local level; Citizens driving processes important for penta-helix collaboration; Health promoters building trust over different sectors in the society; System changes takes time and Shift of power. The analysis shows that the penta- helix collaboration worked well at the local level in a governance related model for penta- helix cooperation. In the overall cooperation it was the citizen-driven processes that make the program work. However, the ndings also indicated an inexibility in organisations with hierarchical structures that created barriers for citizens involvement in the penta-helix collaboration. Conclusion: The main issue uncovered in this study is the problem of vertically organized institutions based voluntary health promoters.


Background
The existence of social inequalities in health is well established in the world. To reduce these inequalities, it is essential to take action on the social determinants of health in a broader perspective and improve the conditions in which people live and work [1]. Health inequalities can be reduced through increased social justice, achieved by supporting the development of both individual and collective skills. One way to do this is through community empowerment initiatives. Engaged and empowered communities can then provide supportive environments and create positive social norms that facilitate individuals to gain motivation, con dence and self-management skills [2]. Furthermore, to create more equal health in socially vulnerable areas there is also a need for new strategies of collaboration, with different partners working intersectorally to create solutions for solving complex societal challenges. In the light of this, a CBPR (Community Based Participatory Research) programme, Collaborative Innovations for Health Promotion, started in 2017. The programme sought to create new ways to improve health, primarily through participatory and collaborative penta-helix strategies from a community perspective in a new health promotion platform.
The health of individuals is viewed also as a common responsibility, not only an individual, which means that many sectors must be involved and collaborate in this work, not only the healthcare sector [3].
Consequently, a holistic approach, with intersectoral action and partnership, is a cornerstone in promoting health and health equity [4], as it includes partnerships across the spectrum of health promotion initiatives locally, regionally and nationally [5]. In order to be successful, it is therefore important to identify opportunities for collaboration, negotiate agendas and promote synergies [3]. By working in an effective partnership, partners can achieve better results than by working on their own and they can also produce synergy effects, as their different skills, resources and knowledge complement each other and result in more effective solutions [6]. However, it is vital that implementing a cross-sectoral partnership builds on what is already known about effective processes [7]. A review assessing the impact of alliances of partnerships for health promotion, concluded that intersectoral collaborations to promote health between public, private and non-government sectors, do work [8]. Also, the more local community partners are involved in setting the agenda for actions and as well in the implementation of health promotion strategies, the greater the impact of the partnership. Activities organised by volunteers also ensure the optimal advantage from a community approach (ibid.). Worldwide, there is no commonly accepted theory of health promotion partnership, but numerous theoretical frameworks exist [7]. As mentioned above, in this programme, the research platform was built on CBPR. One of the characteristics of CBPR that distinct them from other participatory methods is the equal partnership at all stages of the research process and the importance of each partner to de ne their roles clearly in the beginning of the project. Thus, it is a pleasing model for research with vulnerable populations [9].
Developing a programme with CBPR Wallerstein et al. [10] de ne CBPR as "collaborative efforts among community, academic, and other stakeholders who gather and use research and data to build on the strengths and priorities of the community for multilevel strategies to improve health and social equity". CBPR has been used in both a northern and a southern tradition. The northern tradition, based on theories by Levin [11], has been oriented towards changing organisations and bridging the gap between theory and practice in working with different stakeholders. In the southern tradition, CBPR researchers have been focusing on social movements, often from a perspective adopted from Freire [12] and aiming at fostering democracy, participation and social transformation among citizens [10].
The programme for health promoting collaboration is built upon Freire's empowerment processes as well as on Levin's goal to change power relations inside organisations and took place in Malmö, by an initiative by Malmö university and the community. Malmö is the third biggest city in Sweden, and the program was developed in a geographical part of Malmö, Lindängen with about 7,600 citizens, approximately 75% of whom are rst-and second-generation migrants [13]. Unemployment is about 50% in both men and women in the area [13], that can be described as relatively deprived, with high criminality and considerable inequalities in health.
The programme involved a penta-helix structure and the following actors: Academia, the public sector/the state, the business sector, non-governmental organisations, and partners from the geographical community (Fig. 1). A strategic steering group was formed at an initial stage in the CBPR planning by organisations that showed an interest and had a speci c focus on promoting health in deprived city areas. This included representatives from academia (Malmö University), voluntary organisations (The Red Cross, Save the Children, Skåne Sport Federation), the business sector (pharmacy, housing company, technology company; oral health company), and the public sector (Region of Scania, Malmö City, Finsam -a state nancial coordination covenant in rehabilitation). Furthermore, citizens of the geographical community were represented in the steering group.
The steering group, that had an intersectoral cooperation, worked based on CBPR principles [14], taking the shared identity of the geographical community into account and basing the programme on the strength of community collaboration. The goal was also to make the programme a long-term commitment in the geographical community and for knowledge from the programme to result in actions for policy changes within their own organisations (Fig. 2). They also had an advisory role. The programme was built on an intersectoral cooperation, vertically and horizontally. A horizontal cooperation refers to a voluntary and a more relational and interpersonal cooperation between different actors, while vertical cooperation takes place in a strong hierarchy [15]. Horizontal organisations have a greater need for legitimacy compared to vertical ones, for example, through delegated management decisions. Vertical organisations need to report to their management in order for a project to be given legitimacy (ibid.).
On an operative level, there was a local organisation, a secretariat, working in a penta-helix structure with professionals from different sectors employed by partners from the steering group (i.e., social workers from Malmö city, professionals from the Red Cross and the municipality, and PAR researchers from the academy). The secretariat could be seen as the hub in the programme, working locally in the geographical community, close to the citizens and with the mission to create dialogues, build trust and mobilize the citizens in an interprofessional and intersectoral cooperation. In the secretariat, professionals and researchers from health and social care worked together with voluntary organisations and local health promoters (henceforth called health promoters).
The health promoters (N = 6) were citizens in the geographical community that had expressed their interest in the program during "future workshops". They had been chosen by the citizens to represent the geographical community in the CBPR-planning and could be seen as facilitators for participant recruitment and language interpretation, as well as building relations and trust. They had continuous dialogues with the citizens [16], whom they represented, and they were also engaged in the steering group. They participated actively in creating the CBPR model of the research platform. The health promoters had different cultural backgrounds (from example Europe and the Middle East) and were both women and men. They had lived in Sweden for many years, spoke Swedish and had earlier been involved in different activities in the geographical community.

Pre-programme activities
When the programme started, there were already some ongoing activities in the community to build on.
Two of the voluntary organisations, the Red Cross and Save the Children International, had different activities in the geographical community and they had, thus, already started the process of building trust among the citizens. Also, the public sector had previously organised activities in the community, also with the ambition to work intersectorally, but the activities were here ruled by governance from Malmö City. The professionals worked in their own organisations and there was no organised work between the different professionals regarding health-promotion work. The work had been in the shape of organised eld work and the eld workers had established contacts in the community as well as some urban meeting places. Some of these social meeting places still existed when the programme started, and there were also some eld workers left in the community. However, the number of eld workers was substantially reduced as a consequence of nancial cuts, and these changes had resulted in some mistrust among the citizens. In the social meeting places in the area, some participation from the citizens could be observed; it however was not driven by the citizens themselves, and consequently their scope of action was con ned, and the organisations owned the power. Moreover, there was no knowledge about the citizens' health from their own perspective and based on their needs, and also a mistrust of the health care system.

Creating CBPR principles for social change and empowerment
Before starting the collaboration process, "future workshops" with citizens of the geographical community (N = 150) were invited in order to identify community strengths and to customize the programme to the citizens' own perceived needs regarding their own health promotion. The health needs identi ed by the citizens were lack of physical activity, poor oral health and mental health problems. The citizens also wanted to create a sense of place and learning in co-creative so-called living labs for health promotion in social meeting places in the area. Together with all partners at the local level, they created a CBPR model for planning these labs, suggesting interventions and con rming the collaboration, in order to set goals for the organisation and an overall programme.
By using the penta-helix structure both in a vertical (steering group) and a horizontal (local secretariat) integration [15], in which the citizens had just as big an impact as other actors, and by involving them in the whole process of constructing the programme, a stronger community-driven approach could be created. Furthermore, processes of empowerment, another central component of the programme, could be initiated. Empowerment can be seen at two levels, the individual level and the community level. At the individual level, empowerment is about the general capacity of an individual to feel strong enough to make choices in their lives, while empowerment at the community level refers to the capacity of a community, through the participation process, to reach collectively de ned goals [10]. Involvement at both individual and community levels is required for the process to be successful [17]. However, crucial for empowering a whole community is that the community partners also have developed more power over the place and that they feel attached to the material environment.
When facing a global challenge such as health equity, it requires the involvement of the whole society and a collaboration between different sectors. In order to reduce inequities, the programme therefore used a penta-helix perspective that also empowered the citizens by making them equal partners. The citizens here played a strategic role, since they transferred the knowledge from the community directly to the strategic level for policy changes. The health promoters, recruited among the citizens from the area, were employed by the platform and formed part of the local secretariat working with partners from different sectors, and they were not committed to the culture and norms of a certain organisation. However, in CBPR projects, it is important to understand how the collaboration between the partners develops during the process, in order to gain knowledge about what societal effects and social impacts can be achieved through such cooperation. Thus, a process evaluation is important in order to understand how the collaborations has developed during the programme. The aim of this study was to explore how the pentahelix collaboration worked from the perspectives of all partners, including the citizens.

Method
The partners of the steering group (N = 13) and the secretariat (N = 8), as well as members of the geographical community (N = 5), have been interviewed on three occasions, in late 2017, in October 2018, and in May 2019. The interviews were based on a guide for self-re ection and evaluation of CBPR partnerships by Wallerstein [18] "Partnership Interview Guide; Qualitative Study Instrument, 2011 [adapted 2015]" and consisted of questions from seven different perspectives with focus on the partnership: involvement; context; partnership and group behaviour; intervention and design; intervention and policy impact; sustainability; and advice to others. The same guide was used during all three interviews. In the interviews, the partners represented their organisation and not themselves. The interviews took place at the partners' workplaces and citizens' meeting places and lasted approximately 30-60 minutes, and they were tape-recorded and transcribed before the analysis began.
A qualitative content analysis as described by Elo and Kyngäs [19] was used to analyse the interviews. First, the transcripts were read numerous times to obtain an overall understanding of the data. Thereafter, meaning units of the text that corresponded with the aim were condensed and coded manually. As a third step, the codes were interpreted and compared, to nd similarities and differences, and then they were sorted into tentative themes without losing their content (ibid.). The rst and the last author separately read and analysed the text during the process and then discussed it to obtain the best possible account of the meaning found in the texts. Finally, the they agreed on six themes that uni ed the content within the themes.

Results
The six themes: Challenges for the partners in the penta-helix collaboration; Challenges for the professionals at the local level; Citizens driving processes important for the penta-helix collaboration; Health promoters building trust over different sectors in the society; Shift of power and System changes takes time were identi ed and considered to re ect the perspectives of the partners.
Challenges for the partners in the penta-helix collaboration The partners from academia stated that the main challenge for the partnership was to nd cross-border solutions in the collaboration that would persist over time. Partners from voluntary organisations highlighted problems for organisations that based much of their work on volunteers, i.e., work without pay. Also, the voluntary organisations get funding from different sources and often only for periods of one or two years, which makes it di cult to work in a long-term perspective. The challenge for the business sector was that they work in lean organisations without any extra resources to participate in meetings and make plans for initiatives lasting over time. The challenge for the partners from the public sector was to get their own organisations to understand the CBPR model and to nd their role in the programme from a bottom-up perspective. Finally, the challenge for the partners representing the citizens was to make the citizens understand that they had to be engaged in the geographical community's workshops to be able to get their ideas involved in the programme. One of them stated: The programme got ideas from the people, from the workshop, from women. Yes, if they (citizens) not come to the workshop, there's nothing.
At the start, some organisations, for example, the Red Cross and Save the Children, were more visible than other organisations that experienced it more challenging to nd their role. Some partners from the public sector were afraid that there would be expectations from other partners that they not could live up to after the end of the project. Even in a big organisation there might not be unrestricted economic resources, and often, money is earmarked for special purposes. One partner from the public sector said: When we engage in a partnership there might be expectations that we are a kind of bank that it's good to discuss with ... like… 'we have some di culties with money for the project … maybe you can ...'… I sometimes feel that when we collaborate, people expect the money to come.
Thus, to encourage their intersectoral work, many partners in the penta-helix collaboration wished to have more knowledge about each other's organisations and their prerequisites for and contributions to the programme, as it was seen as essential to avoid both misunderstandings and unrealistic expectations.
Other challenges described were to take the programme to a long-term sustainable solution that was not based on external nancing. During the third interview, many partners also emphasized the importance of creating a democratic structure in the geographical community for the health promoters to build on, as the programme, from a sustainability perspective, cannot be their base in the future. Some of the partners representing the university, highlighted the importance of not seeing the programme as an objective study object, as this might risk losing the bottom-up perspective important in CBPR research. In contrast, especially partners from the business sector stated that it was important not to forget that the programme was above all an innovation programme and not a research programme, and one of them declared: The innovation should not be lost in favour of research.
However, one of the biggest challenges described was the in exibility and stiffness in the partners' own organisations that resulted in their feeling governed and not having enough room for action in the steering group. This in exibility could be related to the vertical structures of a government model with no tradition to work from a bottom-up perspective. One of the partners from the public sector described it like this: We need to rethink and build new local horizontal systems instead of the old, vertical systems (downpipes) that we are still working in.
Challenges for the professionals at the local level In exibility in their own organisations was also highlighted among the partners at the operational level as being one of the biggest challenges in the programme. Here, the partners were close to each other and the citizens in the geographical community and much of their work was about building relations and trust. They often worked as problem solvers helping each other and, thus, needed to be exible and to make decisions and act quickly. However, they had frequently encountered in exibility from their own organisations to be able to act, by one partner described like this: …wrestling with hierarchies and getting caught in downpipes.
Most of the organisations were not used to working from the bottom-up perspective, and at the operational level the challenge was both to nd constructive solutions for ensuring the progress of the programme and to nd a balance in relation to their own organisation. One partner at the operational level stated: Systems that were built and worked in the 1970s don't work today, as society has changed a lot. Organisations need to change to meet the needs of society and they are at different levels in this development. While some have started, others haven't yet realised that they do need to change.
Mobilization of knowledge was above all seen at the operational level, where people from different organisations and backgrounds worked together close to the citizens. They felt that even if their knowledge base was sometimes different, what they had in common was the hierarchical structure in their own organisations that often complicated their work and consequently acted as a barrier in the programme.
Citizens driving processes important for penta-helix collaboration At the operational level, the partners with their different backgrounds had a broad range of contacts, which was seen as a strength as well as necessary for the programme. The partners could make use of each other's competencies in the CBPR research planning model, something which has become increasingly important during the programme. One of them stated: We see our work as a social change built on collective intelligence.
The partners had different opinions about the use of different tools for CBPR, such as the model and how it could lead to policy changes and then result in an increased citizen in uence. Some, above all partners from the university and the voluntary organisations, who already were familiar with the model, asserted that it would have been impossible to come that far building trust, without the model. One partner from the voluntary organisations stated: The CBPR model is a central part of the programme and that was an important prerequisite for us to be a part of the programme. It gives structure and makes the bottom-up perspective visible.
Others claimed that the CBPR model had worked well and had provided security and stability to the programme, as well as increased impact and participation. However, it was not the model itself but rather the citizen in uence in all parts of the programme, with the "future workshops", the CBPR planning, and the health promoters as well as the citizens being involved at all levels, at both the steering group and the operational level, that was the key factor of the programme success. The people involved in the programme, especially the health promoters, and their commitment and building of con dence and relations, were more important for the programme than the model. If a programme such as this is not successful in building con dence and relations, it will fail regardless of using a model or not many partners argue. The partners experienced that tools, for example the model is needed, but it is citizendriven processes that make results, not a speci c tool/model.

Health promoters building trust over different sectors in the society
All partners in the steering group, as well as in the secretariat, pointed out the importance of the health promoters, who had, to a large extent, contributed to the success of the programme, as they mobilized to build a sustainable society based on the citizens in the geographical community. One partner representing one of the voluntary organisations said: In such an area, processes of building con dence are needed. The health promoters know their geographical community and can build con dence to the residents. They are the link that is needed between the residents and the society to build con dence.
However, the role of the health promoters was new, and it was seen as both a great opportunity and a challenge. One partner, representing the university, described it like this: As the role of the health promoters is a new concept, it is also important to discuss how their role will be formalised without making it too formalised. Also, how can the health promoters be a part of and work in already existing systems, or do we need to nd a new platform for their work?
The health promoters worked over different sectors in the society. However, all partners described it as a challenge which sector should employ the health promoters in the future and how the nancing of them should be solved when the programme was nished. Some of the health promoters worked voluntarily in the beginning of the program, while others had an employment that was nanced by different organisations. For the organisations involved in this work, above all the Red Cross and Save the Children, it was important that the different conditions (voluntary work/employment) were clear, in order to avoid a situation where people who do voluntary work for the organisations want to be remunerated.

Shift of power
Above all the partners from the university and the voluntary organisations stressed the importance of always being aware of the imbalance of power that might arise when people with different prerequisites work together. The majority of the partners in the steering group were used to being in such environments, representing different organisations, while the citizens of the geographical community represented themselves as partners of the community and did not have earlier experiences of being in a steering group. It has been a process during the whole programme to make the partners representing the citizens visible and listen to them as important and equal partners, something which the majority of the partners, including the partners representing the citizens, felt had worked out well. When the partners representing the geographical community were asked about power, they stated that they during the programme had seen that their role had become increasingly important and that they made a difference. From their perspective, they de ned this as power, and one of them said: If I explain to the people what you do in the projects and I come back to steering group and explain what they want and I got a tip, perhaps can I help a lot in that way. Because I contact all the time the people and take their questions to steering group and then bring the answers back. They trust me. It's power. The partners at the operational level stated that they could see power changes at an individual as well as at a local level, changes that might be explained by the different phases of the programme. Those who worked at the operational level worked close to the health promoters and local stakeholders and had much more contact with the citizens in the geographical community, so they could see actual changes and that the citizens had got more power over their space. The citizens were more enterprising and started up things on their own initiatives. They were now helping themselves more and more, and they asked the local stakeholder if they wanted something and suggested changes in the power structure. The citizens were also increasingly aware of their rights. During the programme, the partners at the operational level had seen a process of power that one of them described like this: When the programme started, it was the organisations behind the programme that had the prerogative to interpret human rights, but now individuals have more and more started to own these rights.
According to the interviews, the programme shows a shift in power relations, due to the fact that citizens of the geographical community were partners in the steering group with persons working on a strategical level (such as pro -vice chancellor, executive directors). For many of the partners in the steering group, this, together with the research bottom-up perspective, was a new way of working, and during the programme it has been obvious that they now all see the importance and value of working in this kind of partnership. One partner representing the university said: As citizens from the geographical community are partners of the steering group, it is impossible to talk above their heads and, consequently, the perspective of the citizens is always in focus and the bottom-up perspective is not forgotten.
The partners expressed the importance of pointing out the uniqueness of the programme that differs from earlier research programmes, namely, that the role of the citizens is equal to that of the other participants in the programme, as they are involved in the design of the program. Moreover, all partners also wanted to highlight the health promoters, who are also unique in this programme, in their work to involve the citizens in the geographical community. This is how one of the health promoters described the work: I feel like an important person right now. The fact that everybody tells me…, I can tell to the steering group and everyone listens to my voice. Today I can, you know … gather the voices of other women and take to the steering group. Yes, and there's someone who listens to me. The professionals at the operational level also highlighted changes related speci c to the women in the geographical community; the project create more space for manoeuvre among the women and make them more visible in the place. From their work in the local place, they could see that the women were "the hearts of their families". They argue that strengthening the empowerment of the women at an individual level is central for achieving empowerment at a community level. The citizens themselves also saw the importance of focusing on the women, and one of them stated: I think women are up for it rst, then in the family can everyone do together activities, or they will help each other. Do a lot, because the women are important people in the family.

System changes takes time
Even if all partners in different ways experienced barriers in their own organisations, for example, hierarchies for decision-making, they all felt that their work and collaboration in the steering group worked well and experienced themselves working in a network model of governance. All partners experienced a high participation and no hierarchies in the collaboration of the steering group. The composition of the group of partners, with regard to their experiences and competences, was described as good, and so was the trust and respect between the partners. Even if they did not always agree with each other, they highlighted the importance of everyone contributing with their different perspectives, mobilizing their knowledge and learning from each other.
For most of the partners in the steering group, working in a multidisciplinary way, according to a pentahelix structure, was a new experience and more complex and di cult than many of them had realised before the programme started. A top-down perspective, which does not build relations but instead demolishes them, could be seen among some of the partners, for example, in the attitude "what's in the programme for us", expressed like this by a partner from the public sector: The results from the programme can help us in our work in other geographical communities with the same problems and challenges as we can see in this community.
During the programme and over time, a progress could be seen in how the programme was viewed by the partners of the steering group. This progress was noticeable when comparing the rst interview, to the second and third interviews, where the focus was changed to "what can we do for the programme?" Furthermore, when interviewed the third time, it could be seen that some of those partners had started the process of changing their own inner structures, something which is, however, a long process. The partners pointed out that the programme is about impact and that changes take time, especially on a society level.
When interviewed the two rst times, the partners stated that even if it was possible to see positive changes on an individual level, it was too early to say anything about the bene ts or results the programme might generate. Moreover, the programme was in too early a phase for them to say anything about changes at the policy or system level. In the last interview, however, some partners stated that the concept of the health promoters were now at a point where they started to make a difference at a policy level, which meant that the partners could show their organisations that the work of the health promoters had a considerable effect, and that this penta-helix collaboration was the new way to work for the future.
All partners asserted that the involvement of the university was positive and brought valuable aspects of research to the local level in the geographical community, which strengthened the programme. It was of importance when reporting back to their own organisations to suggest policy changes. All partners argue that the university inspires trust and represents secure ethical values that are necessary in this kind of programme, so that business or political interests do not take over. Partners from the voluntary organisations also said that one of the most important aspects of the programme was the research performed by the university, and that they could present the results to their managers at a national level.
The voluntary organisations had experiences of working in a community-based way before; however, this was the rst time research was involved, something that provided new dimensions and more value as compared to other projects.
The partners representing the citizens pointed out that thanks to the involvement of the university the citizens in the geographical community had got a favourable picture of the university, and one of them said: The path to the university has become shorter.

Discussion
This study was based on a programme that sought to create new ways to promote health, primarily through participatory and collaborative penta-helix strategies from a community perspective in a health promotion platform. The study aimed to explore how the penta-helix collaboration worked from the perspectives of all partners.
Our ndings showed that the partners experienced the collaboration as challenging in different ways, as it was not easy or natural for all to work in a penta-helix collaboration. We could see both in exibility and organisations with hierarchical structures that were not ready to work from a bottom-up perspective.
Moreover, all involved organisations had problems with downpipes and needed to adapt to a vertical model, which made the penta-helix collaboration harder. The in exibility was above all seen in the partners' own organisations, however, and they felt that their intersectoral work in the steering group worked well. Most of the problems and frustration caused by the in exibility were seen at the secretariat, where the partners worked close to the citizens and needed to be exible in, for example, using each other's resources, such as premises and staff. As a consequence, and thanks to their local collaboration in the penta-helix secretariat, they found new solutions and were often thinking outside the box, and we could see that their local collaboration facilitated a cross-sector network that increased the collaborative governance.
In such a programme, it is important to keep the partnership open and see it as an ongoing process that is possible to in uence during the whole programme, in order to avoid a decline in creativity. The way the partners described the decision process, decisions were developed during the course of the programme, and it could, thus, be seen as more governance, networking structure to implement the program locally.
The advantage of this could be a more dynamic decision process; the disadvantage, however, might be that the decision process is not always clear to everybody.
The challenge of the sustainability of the programme was also highlighted. However, this challenge is not unique to our programme and the sustainability of health promotion initiatives has frequently been discussed [20]. Sustainability often depends on the role of stakeholders outside of government and their capacity to create social networks or partnerships to sustain their efforts (ibid.). In this programme, the members of the secretariat stated that from a sustainability perspective, it would be better to shift the power from the steering group to the operational level, as their close collaboration with the citizens as well as with the health promoters was a cornerstone of sustainability. This could be seen as a shift of power as well as an empowering process. According to Flynn et al. [21], professionals should work together with community members rather than directing them to create empowering participation, and Gillies [8] elucidated the importance of involving local community partners for getting the most out of the partnership. In the current study, the professionals in the secretariat, as well as the health promoters, can be seen as such partners. The professionals in the secretariat organised the local work together with the health promoters and the citizens, without involvement from the structural level. Thus, power was shifted from a structural to a local level. Consequently, the programme was driven by the citizens and their involvement, a shift of power that can be seen as the success of the programme (Fig. 3).
From our ndings it emerged that power was seen from different perspectives. Many of the partners in the steering group considered themselves to represent a structure with hierarchical elements of power and stated that the citizens represented in the steering group did not have such a structure to back them up, which resulted in an imbalance of power. Accordingly, this gave a direct focus on citizen in uence, as it was impossible to overlook the citizens when they were represented in the steering group. Laverack [22] asserts that individuals with power can use their own power to provide an environment to those without power, for example, marginalized groups. When empowerment is achieved, the marginalized groups are able to improve their conditions and sustain them over time. A powerful process of empowerment could be seen during the programme among the health promoters, who have grown in their role and grown together, in a process resulting in their believing in themselves and in the citizens in the geographical community. Together they have developed a spirit characterized by the attitude that "together we can change things and make a difference". The programme consequently helped to empower the citizens by involving them as equal partners in the penta-helix structure.
In the system, there is an inertia that can be explained by the hierarchical structures in a governmental model that hinder the structural level from working in a penta-helix perspective, involving citizens as equal partners in cooperation. If power relations are changed, the management system and the structure of the organisations must also be changed at a policy level, to reach full empowerment at a community level. The programme can be seen as the rst step of this process, but a lot of work remains to be done. Gillies (1998) stated that intersectoral health promotion collaborations between public, private and nongovernment sectors do work. Based on our ndings, we agree. Nevertheless, we conclude that cooperation in a penta-helix structure is problematic in institutional contexts with hierarchical structures. Too many downpipes and silos make it impossible to work in a governance manner. Cooperation in a penta-helix collaboration does work in a local context, however, provided you can work horizontally, in a governance system.

Conclusions
The issue uncovered in this study is the problem of vertically organized institutions where discovery and innovation ow down from the top, thereby eliminating the essential input of the people and community that they are supposed to serve. This is a common problem in health and social care and must be changed to improve health equity, healthcare and health outcomes. If the intended cents are not heard, the programs will fail.
The success of the programme is based on an interprofessional cooperation at a local level in a pentahelix structure where the citizens cooperate on equal terms. By working from a local context, close to the citizens, it is possible to give citizens an increased impact. Our ndings indicate that local professionals working together with voluntary organisations and health promoters in a penta-helix structure on a local level could empower geographical communities. We could also see the importance of strategic planning in a CBPR model to make the penta-helix structure work in practice. The programme made empowerment processes possible because of health promoters' multidisciplinary work that did not have to align with existing structures.
However, policy changes for a penta-helix structure with citizen involvement in one city area are not enough to reduce health inequalities. It is therefore important to evaluate the implemented model in relation to health processes and outcomes among the citizens, that also takes into account empowerment processes. Still, as stated by Freudenberg and Tsui (2014), policy and practice changes reducing health inequalities do not occur naturally as a consequence of scienti c evidence, the mobilization of a few communities, or the convictions of a few politicians. Instead, these changes result from multiple actions in many domains (ibid.).
For the future, more power and an increased mandate to decide must be given to the professionals on a local level to enable them to work in a penta-helix perspective. Citizens, such as the health promoters, must in the future also be established on a policy level and properly organised in the local context in sustainable ways. One solution is to work horizontally and solve problems at a local level based on citizens' own needs. As a nal note, since the interviews in this study were performed, the secretariat together with the health promoters have now converted into an association that continues the programme, and the research is organised by Malmö University. The steering group now works as an advisory board.