Has anything surprised you during the project?
Which methods or tools have been particularly important in the data collection and subsequent analysis?
Many different elements have been involved. In the preparation phase, professional expertise is of course essential, but because the project involves many partners with different interests, much of the work is also about collaboration, dialogue, compromise, and choosing your battles. It is often a balancing act.
In the reporting phase, the work is primarily internal. Here, we have benefited greatly from being an established project group with experience from previous rounds and with diverse competencies: sharp statisticians, skilled communicators, and colleagues with an eye for the bigger picture.
In this round, we also received valuable support from Anne Birgitte, Birgitte, and Stig in various parts of the process. Their fresh perspectives helped improve the quality of the data, the reporting, and the communication - even if it can feel a bit frustrating at times.
What has been the biggest challenge, and how did you handle it?
There have been several challenges. One of the biggest was the disagreement about whether to replace the measure for mental health. There are both advantages and disadvantages to making such a change, and it required extensive dialogue and compromise to find a solution that all parties could support.
We also experienced lower participation than in previous rounds, which led to adjustments along the way - including the decision to send an additional reminder. In addition, we had a single question that did not work as intended, and we ultimately chose not to report it because the quality was not sufficient. That is of course unfortunate, but necessary to ensure a robust product.
What has it been like for you personally to lead such a long-term project? What has motivated you the most?
One of the most motivating aspects is the strong demand for what we produce. The results are used directly in health policy agendas and in the planning and prioritisation of public health efforts - nationally, regionally, and locally. That is a huge driving force.
At the same time, the collaborative structure provides broad contact with key stakeholders at many levels, offering insight into how the results are used in practice and enabling many valuable discussions. This makes the work both meaningful and professionally enriching.
Looking back, what do you take with you - professionally and personally?
That each round of the National Health Profile is unique. There are always unforeseen challenges, but also opportunities for learning. Relationships and collaboration are just as crucial as professional expertise if the strongest arguments are to prevail.
And you always learn something new. In this round, there has been particular focus on smoke-free nicotine products, health literacy, and SWEMWBS as a new measure of mental health, which has prompted deeper exploration of these areas.
Finally, having a strong project group has been incredibly valuable - especially in the intense final phase. It makes a big difference.