Conducting cross-sectoral collaborative research for food system transformation: learnings from a qualitative evaluation study.

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Sarah Shaw, Oliver Huse, Bea Savory, Noah Cooke, Claire Thompson, Rachel Loopstra, Peter Scarborough, David Ogilvie, Steven Cummins, Martin White, Jean Adams
{"title":"Conducting cross-sectoral collaborative research for food system transformation: learnings from a qualitative evaluation study.","authors":"Sarah Shaw, Oliver Huse, Bea Savory, Noah Cooke, Claire Thompson, Rachel Loopstra, Peter Scarborough, David Ogilvie, Steven Cummins, Martin White, Jean Adams","doi":"10.1186/s12961-026-01540-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The SALIENT consortium aimed to bring together research, government and food system stakeholders to co-design, implement and evaluate public-facing food system interventions targeting health and sustainability whilst maintaining affordability and commercial viability. A total of 40 organizations engaged with SALIENT; 8 progressed to deliver and evaluate a total of 10 interventions. We conducted an evaluation to understand how and why the SALIENT stakeholder engagement process worked for different organizations and to inform future food system intervention research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using theory-based evaluation principles, a theory of change (ToC) was developed to describe how the SALIENT process was expected to function. A total of 38 semi-structured interviews were conducted with government partners, researchers and food system representatives. Data were thematically analysed and interpreted in relation to the ToC.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Findings highlighted the fragmented nature of existing health and sustainability actions across the food system, shaped by differing priorities, agendas and constraints of stakeholders. Power dynamics influenced stakeholder participation, with engagement strongest when research was aligned with core stakeholder goals and offered them tangible benefits. Whilst pragmatic co-design processes built trust and feasibility, they sometimes led to interventions with limited potential to address critical uncertainties in the evidence base. Academic processes were often perceived as misaligned with stakeholders' practical needs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Long-term government direction, stronger accountability, and incentives are needed to foster meaningful collaboration between researchers and food system stakeholders. Future partnerships should balance flexibility with rigour, build trust through sustained relationships, and establish strong governance, communication and evaluation processes early to generate robust, scalable evidence for meaningful food system change.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13659941/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-026-01540-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The SALIENT consortium aimed to bring together research, government and food system stakeholders to co-design, implement and evaluate public-facing food system interventions targeting health and sustainability whilst maintaining affordability and commercial viability. A total of 40 organizations engaged with SALIENT; 8 progressed to deliver and evaluate a total of 10 interventions. We conducted an evaluation to understand how and why the SALIENT stakeholder engagement process worked for different organizations and to inform future food system intervention research.

Methods: Using theory-based evaluation principles, a theory of change (ToC) was developed to describe how the SALIENT process was expected to function. A total of 38 semi-structured interviews were conducted with government partners, researchers and food system representatives. Data were thematically analysed and interpreted in relation to the ToC.

Results: Findings highlighted the fragmented nature of existing health and sustainability actions across the food system, shaped by differing priorities, agendas and constraints of stakeholders. Power dynamics influenced stakeholder participation, with engagement strongest when research was aligned with core stakeholder goals and offered them tangible benefits. Whilst pragmatic co-design processes built trust and feasibility, they sometimes led to interventions with limited potential to address critical uncertainties in the evidence base. Academic processes were often perceived as misaligned with stakeholders' practical needs.

Conclusions: Long-term government direction, stronger accountability, and incentives are needed to foster meaningful collaboration between researchers and food system stakeholders. Future partnerships should balance flexibility with rigour, build trust through sustained relationships, and establish strong governance, communication and evaluation processes early to generate robust, scalable evidence for meaningful food system change.

开展粮食系统转型的跨部门合作研究:来自定性评估研究的经验教训。
背景:突出联盟旨在将研究、政府和食品系统利益相关者聚集在一起,共同设计、实施和评估面向公众的食品系统干预措施,以健康和可持续性为目标,同时保持可负担性和商业可行性。共有40个组织参与了突出问题;8个项目取得进展,总共实施和评估了10项干预措施。我们进行了一项评估,以了解突出利益相关者参与过程如何以及为什么在不同的组织中起作用,并为未来的食品系统干预研究提供信息。方法:运用基于理论的评价原则,提出了一种变化理论(ToC)来描述突出过程的预期功能。与政府合作伙伴、研究人员和食品系统代表共进行了38次半结构化访谈。根据ToC对数据进行了专题分析和解释。结果:调查结果强调了整个粮食系统现有的健康和可持续性行动的碎片性,受到不同优先事项、议程和利益相关者限制的影响。权力动态影响利益相关者的参与,当研究与利益相关者的核心目标一致并为他们提供切实利益时,参与程度最高。虽然务实的共同设计过程建立了信任和可行性,但它们有时会导致干预措施的潜力有限,无法解决证据基础中的关键不确定性。学术过程经常被认为与利益相关者的实际需求不一致。结论:长期政府方向,加强问责制,通过激励措施来促进有意义的研究人员和食品系统涉众之间的协作。未来的伙伴关系应在灵活性和严谨性之间取得平衡,通过持续的关系建立信任,并尽早建立强有力的治理、沟通和评估程序,为有意义的粮食系统变革提供强有力的、可扩展的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Research Policy and Systems
Health Research Policy and Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
124
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书