Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40590405›Full record

ArticleHealth promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals2025

Peas in a Pod: The Process of Mutual Learning in Knowledge Exchange on Health Promotion Interventions Research.

Laura J Kennedy, Taylor Nicholson, Khia DeSilva, Rebecca Hasdell, Gabriella Luongo, Megan Ferguson, Emily Jago, Catherine L Mah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Peas in a Pod: The Process of Mutual Learning in Knowledge Exchange on Health Promotion Interventions Research.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Laura J KennedySchool of Health Administration, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4279-4307
Taylor NicholsonNutrition and Food Services, Nova Scotia Health, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Khia DeSilvaArnhem Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia.
Rebecca HasdellBritish Columbia Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Gabriella LuongoSchool of Health Administration, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Megan FergusonSchool of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Emily JagoSchool of Health Administration, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Catherine L MahSchool of Health Administration, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

Funding

Canada Research Chairs programCIHR Doctoral Award FRN#170778Dalhousie UniversityNova Scotia Graduate Scholarship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionKnowledge exchange (KE) in health promotion research encourages the outcome of mutual learning between researchers and knowledge users. Researcher-practitioner partnerships (RPP) are an approach in health promotion intended to cultivate mutually beneficial research between different disciplines and sectors. RPPs have been found to improve intervention success and sustainability, including the bidirectional sharing of sector-specific knowledge, but how mutual learning occurs remains unclear. This paper analyses two examples of mutual learning in health promotion RPPs, as told by the practitioners and researchers involved.

methodsDuring the Peas in a Pod virtual practice exchange, researchers and practitioners working in retail food environments came together to discuss KE. The event included a fireside chat with two retailers sharing their experiences collaborating with researchers. The primary author took notes from the discussion and led the writing of the case, which each practitioner reviewed for accuracy. After the fireside chat, researchers and knowledge users held small group discussions which were analysed into three themes to explore mutual learning within retail food environment research.

resultsExample one was a retailer-led hospital retail merchandising intervention study at an urban public tertiary hospital in Nova Scotia, Canada. Example two was a healthy merchandising strategy trial with an Australian Aboriginal-owned and governed not-for-profit store corporation in the Northern Territory and Queensland, Australia. Mutual learning involved (1) partnerships with both near and far-sighted vision, (2) negotiation and meeting in the middle and (3) leveraging policies and strategies to support interventions. Overall, KE bridged both knowledge and action.

conclusionThis paper provides insight into how mutual learning occurs in health promotion research. Mutual learning within an RPP influenced research design and implementation. Our findings showed that knowledge exchange emerging through the intervention research also contributed to further changes in partnerships and policies. However, further study is required to understand how knowledge exchange and policies intersect. SO WHAT?: Mutual learning in knowledge exchange can contribute to health promotion intervention evidence and create pathways to new partnerships with retailers who are sceptical or hesitant about implementing retail interventions.

Indexed as

Health PromotionResearch PersonnelCooperative BehaviorHumansLearningNova Scotiahealth promotionmutual learningresearcher‐practitioner partnershipsretail food environment

Identifiers

PMID40590405
PMCPMC12210791

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.