ArticleBMC nutrition2025
Norwegian food system actors' perspectives on participating in a cross-sector research partnership: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCross-sector partnerships are governance models that are increasingly used in policy, research and practice to address food systems challenges including unhealthy diets. Despite ongoing debates about their value, especially in research, there is limited knowledge on the experiences of participating in these partnerships. This study is set in Norway, a country with tradition for cross-sector collaboration. We examine the Norwegian cross-sector research partnership NewTools to explore participants' perspectives in an early project stage. The partnership comprises 28 actors from research institutions, food industry, civil society and government agencies, and aims to develop two food profiling models: one for nutrition and one for environmental and social sustainability. This study can help identify initial factors that can influence nutrition-related cross-sector collaboration processes.
methodsWe conducted qualitative interviews with 17 NewTools-participants in 2022. Interviews were analyzed with reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsFive themes were identified: (i) "The importance of being in the room" illustrated participants views on the benefits of cross-sector collaboration, including sharing expertise and influencing project outcomes. (ii) "Divergent expectations towards collaboration and project aims" reflected varying expectations towards partner involvement and the project outcomes among participants. (iii) "Viewpoints towards food profiling systems" highlighted differing viewpoints on two food profiling models to be developed, with more skeptical views towards the nutrition profiling model. (iv) "Power asymmetries and mistrust" suggested potential tensions and some preexisting mistrust among partners. (v) "Pragmatic approach to COI and conflict management" conveyed that conflicts were considered manageable components of cross-sector collaboration.
conclusionsIn our study from an early project phase, participants described cross-sector collaboration as valuable and challenges as manageable. They also described potential tensions and mistrust between participants and diverging expectations towards roles and project objectives. These findings suggest that potential obstacles for collaboration were present in the project. This underscores the importance of investing time early in cross-sector research partnerships to clarify roles, align expectations and agree on project goals, which otherwise may turn into obstacles for collaboration between actors with varying mandates, interests, and expectations.
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.