ArticleHealth research policy and systems2018
Collaborative and partnership research for improvement of health and social services: researcher's experiences from 20 projects.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
86 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Mechanisms to build research capacity in the rural health workplace: a realist synthesis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- A worldwide itinerary of research ethics in science for a better social responsibility and justice: a bibliometric analysis and review.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2025Pooled it
- Tensions in patient involvement and engagement in health research and development: a qualitative interview study with key actors.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Readiness Assessment for AI in Nursing Care Projects: Multimethods Study.JMIR nursing · 2026Article
- Patients' Associations as Co-Creators of Knowledge: Insights From a Community-Based Participatory Research Study (ProSafe Project).Health science reports · 2026Article
- Development of a Transformative Model of Change for Mental Health Education, Research, and Service.Acta medica Philippina · 2026Article
- Article
- Introducing PROSPECT: a novel process for prospectively tracking research engagement.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Understanding global health research collaborations: an Indigenous realist evaluation of the African Research Initiative for Scientific Excellence programme.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- Evaluation of New Zealand's Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, and Medical Imaging Research Output: A Bibliometric-Based Approach.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2025Article
- Bridging the Gap: The State of Global Transplant Research Collaboration.Transplantation direct · 2025Article
- Modeling environmental interactions and collaborative interventions for childhood stunting: A case from Indonesia.Dialogues in health · 2025Article
- Bibliometric and visual analysis of circadian rhythms in depression from 2004 to 2024.Annals of general psychiatry · 2025Article
- Top 10 Public Health Challenges for 2024: Charting a New Direction for Global Health Security.Public health challenges · 2025Article
- Article
- SWOT analysis of collaborative research among family physicians in Ghana: A workshop report.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2025Article
- Experiences on the implementation and maintenance of the Canadian Disability Participation Project: A mixed-methods study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Participatory development of Indonesia's national action plan for zero leprosy: strategies and interventions.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Medicine Meets Science: The Imperative of Scientific Research and Publishing for Physician-Scientists.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2025Article
- Co-Developed Logic Model for Surgical Prehabilitation in an Acute Care Setting: A Qualitative Study of Stakeholders' Perspectives.Annals of nutrition & metabolism · 2025Article
26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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
Abstract
backgroundGetting research into policy and practice in healthcare is a recognised, world-wide concern. As an attempt to bridge the gap between research and practice, research funders are requesting more interdisciplinary and collaborative research, while actual experiences of such processes have been less studied. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to gain more knowledge on the interdisciplinary, collaborative and partnership research process by investigating researchers' experiences of and approaches to the process, based on their participation in an inventive national research programme. The programme aimed to boost collaborative and partnership research and build learning structures, while improving ways to lead, manage and develop practices in Swedish health and social services.
methodsInterviews conducted with project leaders and/or lead researchers and documentation from 20 projects were analysed using directed and conventional content analysis.
resultsCollaborative approaches were achieved by design, e.g. action research, or by involving practitioners from several levels of the healthcare system in various parts of the research process. The use of dual roles as researcher/clinician or practitioner/PhD student or the use of education designed especially for practitioners or 'student researchers' were other approaches. The collaborative process constituted the area for the main lessons learned as well as the main problems. Difficulties concerned handling complexity and conflicts between different expectations and demands in the practitioner's and researcher's contexts, and dealing with human resource issues and group interactions when forming collaborative and interdisciplinary research teams. The handling of such challenges required time, resources, knowledge, interactive learning and skilled project management.
conclusionsCollaborative approaches are important in the study of complex phenomena. Results from this study show that allocated time, arenas for interactions and skills in project management and communication are needed during research collaboration to ensure support and build trust and understanding with involved practitioners at several levels in the healthcare system. For researchers, dealing with this complexity takes time and energy from the scientific process. For practitioners, this puts demands on understanding a research process and how it fits with on-going organisational agendas and activities and allocating time. Some of the identified factors may be overlooked by funders and involved stakeholders when designing, performing and evaluating interdisciplinary, collaborative and partnership research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.