The editorial, authored by Alexandre Morais Nunes and Joao Ricardo Catarino of the University of Lisbon and Maria José Sousa of ISCTE-Instituto Universitario de Lisboa, introduces a research collection examining the political dynamics and governance mechanisms that either enable or obstruct integrated care in multi-level, cross-sectoral health systems. The premise is deceptively simple: integrating primary, hospital, social, community, and digital care involves redistributing responsibilities, negotiating between public and private actors, and redefining who holds power in health systems. That makes integration a political task as much as a technical one, and the collection treats it accordingly.

At the heart of the argument lies network governance, which the authors understand as a broad umbrella concept rather than a single institutional model. Network governance refers to arrangements in which interdependent actors coordinate across organizational and sectoral boundaries through negotiation, trust, and shared rules, rather than through hierarchy or markets alone. Crucially, the contributions to the collection show that network governance rarely appears in pure form. It mixes with hierarchy, contracts, and incentives in ways that vary dramatically across contexts, from collaborative tables convened at the request of a provincial ministry to regional networks sustained by insurer contracts, from public-private co-creation of digital care to a clearly hierarchical medical alliance in China.

The empirical cases span four countries and reveal a striking convergence. In Ontario, Canada, Liu and Tsasis examined the Sub-Region Collaborative Tables that the provincial Ministry of Health asked health regions to create. Surveys and interviews with health leaders exposed poor communication and few shared goals across sectors, particularly with primary care and with French-language and Indigenous communities. The researchers identified three primers for integration: complexity leadership, trust and mutual respect, and readiness to collaborate. Their findings demonstrate the limits of mandated collaboration, since a ministerial directive can bring actors to the table but cannot manufacture trust by itself.

Wright and colleagues approached the problem conceptually, reviewing the main collaborative governance frameworks and finding that they take for granted a shared purpose, resources, and legitimacy that frontline teams seldom possess when they first reach out to potential partners. Collaboration, they argue, is better understood as a continuum running from outreach through consultation to involvement. Because collaborative governance grew out of democratic theory, the point is also political, and the authors call for practical tools that help frontline actors deal with power imbalances, particularly when governments and hospitals are involved.

Germany offers a test of network governance under financial pressure. Richter and associates compared seven regional health networks and found that networks develop where founders are committed, members see tangible benefits, performance can be demonstrated, and institutional partners and shared care pathways are in place. Fragmented financing, limited acceptance, and selective contracting pull in the opposite direction. The authors conclude that integrated care is as much a political challenge as an implementation one, and that the survival of these networks depends on reforms that break down financing silos, allow tasks to move from physicians to other professions, and widen the legitimacy of network governance itself.

Norway adds a cautionary dimension about technology and participation. Teig and Gjerstad studied how municipalities, care professionals, and technology suppliers co-create welfare technology in Norwegian primary care, and found that co-creation is far from a neutral participatory method. It ends up deciding who plays which role and whose expertise counts. Suppliers gain discursive power by framing technology as inevitable, smaller municipalities come to depend on them, and accountability becomes harder to pin down. Drawing on care ethics, the authors describe co-creation as politics by other means, a phrase that captures how participatory methods can quietly redistribute power rather than share it equally.

The only case from outside Europe and North America comes from China, where Hao and colleagues evaluated an alliance between a tertiary teaching hospital and a county hospital in Jiangsu province over four years. Embedded leadership, a jointly governed fund, surgical training, and DRG-based cost control were associated with more complex surgery, fewer outward referrals, and less reliance on drug revenue. Integration here was promoted by the state and organized through hierarchy, with the tertiary partner’s vice-president appointed as the county hospital’s executive director. Local capacity improved measurably, but the arrangement leaves the county hospital dependent on its partner, illustrating how the same mechanism that promotes integration can also create dependence.

Read together, the contributions converge on six governance dimensions that the editorial identifies as the analytical spine of the collection. Coordination runs through all of them, whether through relational coordination in Ontario, a continuum of collaboration, shared care pathways in Germany, boundary-spanning roles in Norway, or embedded leadership in China. Funding brings fragility as well as stability: German networks are caught in what Richter and colleagues call a project trap, whereas the Chinese alliance relies on a jointly governed fund. Professional participation drives integration but also provokes resistance, as German physicians fear losing clinical autonomy and frontline staff remain largely outside formal governance arenas. Power is redistributed rather than neutralized, moving from physicians to nurses, from municipalities to technology vendors, and from a county hospital to its tertiary partner. Legitimacy rests on performance and public trust, yet it is contested when technical expertise is privileged over care knowledge. Accountability becomes diffuse when public and private actors share responsibilities, and more concentrated, though dependent on the partner institution, when authority is embedded hierarchically.

The editorial’s central argument is that integrated care is a governance process through which authority, resources, voice, and accountability are redistributed, and that network governance is therefore promising but ambivalent. It can foster coordination and participation, and it can also expose power asymmetries, financial fragility, and professional resistance. Any strategy for integration involves political choices about who decides, who takes part, who pays, who coordinates, and who benefits, whether or not these choices are acknowledged. Only by making them explicit, the authors contend, can integration be legitimate and fair rather than merely effective. With conceptual work, reviews, and empirical studies from Canada, Germany, Norway, and China, the collection aims to help researchers, policymakers, and practitioners understand how more integrated, equitable, and responsive health systems are built politically, one negotiated arrangement at a time.

Subject of Research: Network governance and integrated care in multi-level health systems

Article Title: Editorial: Evolving health landscapes: the role of network governance in integrated care

Article References: Nunes, A. M., Catarino, J. R., & Sousa, M. J. (2026). Editorial: Evolving health landscapes: the role of network governance in integrated care. Frontiers in Political Science, 8, Article 1962921. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2026.1962921

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/fpos.2026.1962921

Keywords: integrated care, network governance, collaborative governance, health system reform, accountability, co-creation, health policy, Editorial, Evolving, health, landscapes, role