ArticleHealth research policy and systems2026
Conducting cross-sectoral collaborative research for food system transformation: learnings from a qualitative evaluation study.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe 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.
methodsUsing 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.
resultsFindings 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.
conclusionsLong-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.
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.