Qualitative Dataset (2025) of Embedded Researcher Reflections (Anonymised)

The following anonymised dataset is raw data from a qualitative study that focused on embedded researcher reflections. The data was collected between May 2024 and August 2024. The researchers were embedded within a local authority pilot which included a complex multi-system physical activity intervention in the North West of England. The researchers reflected upon the experience of being an embedded researcher. The data was used to prepare an academic paper to PLOS-ONE and has been accepted for publication in April 2025.

Abstract: Physical inactivity remains a substantial public health concern, with complex socioenvironmental factors contributing to increasing inactivity. Whole systems approaches to physical activity seek to address these complexities by promoting multi-component, place-based interventions. This study reflects on the experiences of three embedded researchers working within a whole systems approach initiative aimed at reducing physical inactivity in the United Kingdom. Researchers were embedded within a local authority and affiliated to a university whilst responsible for evaluating the effectiveness and efficacy of the whole systems approach initiative. Using a reflective journaling method, followed by inductive thematic analysis, the findings identified key challenges and enablers to evaluating the initiative. Key challenges included the perceived value of research and evaluation within the local authority, a lack of capacity to conduct evaluative activity, and the presence of confirmation and reporting bias within the wider delivery team. Key enablers included relationship-building, skill development, and protected time for evaluation and research activity. The findings suggest that institutions supporting embedded researchers should establish regular contact with the local authority, help to establish realistic expectations, and support researchers to overcome emerging challenges. Recommendations for researchers include developing robust relationships, setting out clear expectations, and ensure they have protected time at key points during the evaluation. Through these recommendations, researchers may be better prepared to overcome implementation challenges and improve the efficiency of the evaluation process.