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.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0322-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundThere are good opportunities in Sweden for health promotion targeting expectant parents and parents of young children, as almost all are reached by antenatal and child health care. In 2005, a multisectoral child health promotion programme (the Salut Programme) was launched to further strengthen such efforts.MethodsBetween June and December 2010 twenty-four in-depth interviews were conducted separately with first-time mothers and fathers when their child had reached 18 months of age. The aim was to explore their experiences of health promotion and lifestyle change during pregnancy and early parenthood. Qualitative manifest and latent content analysis was applied.ResultsParents reported undertaking lifestyle changes to secure the health of the fetus during pregnancy, and in early parenthood to create a health-promoting environment for the child. Both women and men portrayed themselves as highly receptive to health messages regarding the effect of their lifestyle on fetal health, and they frequently mentioned risks related to tobacco and alcohol, as well as toxins and infectious agents in specific foods. However, health promotion strategies in pregnancy and early parenthood did not seem to influence parents to make lifestyle change primarily to promote their own health; a healthy lifestyle was simply perceived as 'common knowledge'. Although trust in health care was generally high, both women and men described some resistance to what they saw as preaching, or very directive counselling about healthy living and the lack of a holistic approach from health care providers. They also reported insufficient engagement with fathers in antenatal care and child health care.ConclusionPerceptions about risks to the offspring's health appear to be the primary driving force for lifestyle change during pregnancy and early parenthood. However, as parents' motivation to prioritise their own health per se seems to be low during this period, future health promoting programmes need to take this into account. A more gender equal provision of health promotion to parents might increase men's involvement in lifestyle change. Furthermore, parents' ranking of major lifestyle risks to the fetus may not sufficiently reflect those that constitute greatest public health concern, an area for further study.

BackgroundGetting research into policy and practice (GRIPP) is a process of going from research evidence to decisions and action. To integrate research findings into the policy making process and to communicate research findings to policymakers is a key challenge world-wide. This paper reports the experiences of a research group in a Nigerian university when seeking to ‘do’ GRIPP, and the important features and challenges of this process within the African context.MethodsIn-depth interviews were conducted with nine purposively selected policy makers in various organizations and six researchers from the universities and research institute in a Nigerian who had been involved in 15 selected joint studies/projects with Health Policy Research Group (HPRG). The interviews explored their understanding and experience of the methods and processes used by the HPRG to generate research questions and research results; their involvement in the process and whether the methods were perceived as effective in relation to influencing policy and practice and factors that influenced the uptake of research results.ResultsThe results are represented in a model with the four GRIPP strategies found: i) stakeholders’ request for evidence to support the use of certain strategies or to scale up health interventions; ii) policymakers and stakeholders seeking evidence from researchers; iii) involving stakeholders in designing research objectives and throughout the research process; and iv) facilitating policy maker-researcher engagement in finding best ways of using research findings to influence policy and practice and to actively disseminate research findings to relevant stakeholders and policymakers.The challenges to research utilization in health policy found were to address the capacity of policy makers to demand and to uptake research, the communication gap between researchers, donors and policymakers, the management of the political process of GRIPP, the lack of willingness of some policy makers to use research, the limited research funding and the resistance to change.ConclusionsCountry based Health Policy and Systems Research groups can influence domestic policy makers if appropriate strategies are employed. The model presented gives some direction to potential strategies for getting research into policy and practice in the health care sector in Nigeria and elsewhere.