Table 3 Additional information about the research methods as per the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) checklist

Personal Characteristics

1. Interviewer/facilitator, 2. Credential, 3. Occupation, 4. Gender, 5. Experience and training

Interviews were conducted by author SJR, a researcher with 10 years of qualitative research experience, including the conduct of in-depth interview studies for her PhD and subsequent work. SJR was a newly employed research fellow with the Prevention Centre at the time of the interviews, supervised by SW

Relationship with participants

6. Relationship established, 7. Participant knowledge of interviewer, 8. Interviewer characteristics

SJR knew a few of the interviewees professionally. Participants all knew SJR was employed by the Prevention Centre and was leading the Centre’s evaluation. To reduce social desirability bias, interviewees were reassured that transcripts would only be read by members of the immediate research team, and that the full author team would only view de-identified quotes

Theoretical framework

9. Methodological orientation and Theory

The study was part of a developmental evaluation [35], underpinned by systems thinking [27, 57] and realist ontology [58]. The concepts that informed the interview questions and framed the evaluation approach were informed by the studies of collaborative research partnerships outlined in Table 1

Participant selection

10. Sampling, 11. Method of approach, 12. Sample size, 13. Non-participation

Because the study focused on perspectives of the Centre’s Chief Investigators, purposive sampling was used. Participants were invited by email with one reminder. There were 31 possible participants, 26 of whom (84%) agreed to take part. Four potential participants declined to participate due to poor availability, and one did not reply to the invitations

Setting

14. Setting of data collection, 15. Presence of non-participants, 16. Description of sample

Interviews were conducted between January and March 2016. Interviews took place either face-to-face in the interviewee’s place of work (n = 6) or by telephone (n = 20), depending on their location and preference. The sample of interviewees is described in the methods section

Data collection

17. Interview guide, 18. Repeat interviews, 19. Audio/visual recording, 20. Field notes, 21. Duration, 22. Data saturation, 23. Transcripts

There were no repeat interviews. Field notes were not taken because interviews were audio-recorded and professionally transcribed. The average interview length was 42 min (range, 24 to 76 min). We did not take a data saturation approach, and therefore all available interviewees within our sample were interviewed to obtain the widest range of possible views and experiences. See methods section for further information

Data analysis

24. Number of data coders, 25. Description of the coding tree, 26. Derivation of themes, 27. Software, 28. Participant checking

Data was coded by two researchers using inductive and deductive strategies, the latter identified from our literature search. Data were coded by SR in NVivo 10 qualitative data management software [59], and SR and KG discussed emerging themes on an ongoing basis with other members of the research team to check for reliability and trustworthiness of analysis. Other details are described in the methods section

Reporting

29. Quotations presented, 30. Data and findings consistent, 31. Clarity of major themes, 32. Clarity of minor themes

We report on the results using illustrative quotes. Only major themes (i.e. those that serve the purposes of this this study) are presented here. Consistency between the data and findings presented was checked as part of the iterative cycles of constant comparison in our analysis