The design of the study is a qualitative reflective process evaluation of interdisciplinary experiences from 3 teams with adherence to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) [25]. The participatory process is described in Multimedia Appendix 1. Late 2020 and early 2021, the coordinator and JB conceptualized the interview study (the conceptualizers) and constructed the interview guide (Multimedia Appendix 2).

In the spring of 2021, members of the teams who had participated in the development of a serious game were invited by email to the study. The sampling was purposive and to be eligible to participate they had to be part of one of 3 teams: a research team, a game design team, or an expert team. After one reminder, 13 of 14 eligible participants had replied that they were willing to participate, which resulted in 13 interviews. Thus, providing near-complete coverage of the study population and sufficient information to address the research question. The one who never replied had been part of the game design team as a student.

The participants’ ages ranged from 26 to 65, 5 were more than 60 years and 3 were 30 years or younger. In terms of gender distribution, 4 participants stated that their gender was male and 9 that their gender was female. Table 1 presents an overview of which team each interviewed participant was part of and their corresponding profession at the time of participation.

Eleven of the interviews were conducted in Swedish and 2 in English. None of the participants had English as their native language but the 2 members interviewed in English were fluent in the language. The conceptualizers conducted the interviews and the senior researcher conducted the interviews with other senior researchers. The interviews were performed during the spring and summer of 2021, lasted between 15 and 47 minutes each, and were audio-recorded. Since the participants were scattered around Sweden the interviews were performed online, via Zoom (Zoom Video Communications, Inc.) or the telephone. The audio was transcribed verbatim via a professional service (Swedish material) or by the coordinator (English material). Quotes displayed in the results have, when necessary, been translated from Swedish to English by the authors and checked for accuracy by an authorized translator resulting in minor changes.

The data was analyzed through a reflexive thematic analysis with an inductive approach based on the 6 steps by Braun and Clarke [26]. The coordinator familiarized herself with the data through repeated reading. Transcripts were in “Word” and were edited to remove non-analytic material, such as laughter and off-topic conversation, prior to analysis. A data-driven search for meaning units across the whole data set was conducted and resulted in 406 data snippets. Manual coding of the dataset was carried out by the coordinator with supervision from the conceptualizer [27]. Disagreements about codes were resolved through discussion. Codes that were considered similar were grouped together during clustering, resulting in 7 clusters. The codes guided what cluster the text snippet was assigned to. Furthermore, the reflexive process meant that the full text snippets was mostly read to find the meaning within. An example of the process is displayed in Figure 1. From the patterns that were deduced, 4 subthemes were formulated [26,28]. The subthemes were formulated into descriptive text by the coordinator. All the interviewed participants were emailed and given the opportunity to read and give feedback on the text. One reminder was sent, in total resulting in 10 of the 13 participants giving feedback. All participants confirmed that the text accurately reflected their recollection of what was said during their interview. The whole process emanates from a reflexive collaborative approach which culminated in that all co-authors agreed to the content and labeling of themes after reading the final version.

The study was performed in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki [29]. Informed and written consent was obtained from all participants. Participants shared only work-related experiences and were informed in writing that their contributions would be published in a scientific article. In accordance with Swedish ethical review guidelines and institutional regulations, this information is not considered sensitive personal data and therefore does not require formal ethical approval. Thus, the research team concluded that the study complied with Swedish research ethics guidelines. The participants received information about confidentiality prior to the interviews. Because all individuals involved in the developmental process are identifiable and aware of one another, full anonymization was not possible; this limitation was clearly communicated to the participants. To further protect the individuals, the raw data is stored on institutional servers, password protected, and access has only been granted to the coding researchers. All interviewees were offered the opportunity to read the analyzed results and comment upon them before publication. To protect anonymity externally, the participants’ citations are presented on a team level rather than on an individual level. Raw data will be stored for 5 years after publication and then securely destroyed. Participation was voluntary, and participants received no compensation.

Through the reflexive thematic analysis 1 main theme was identified and named. The title of the main theme is—A learning experience during the participatory process. The main theme is supported by subthemes that provide aspects of what promoted the learning experience of the members’ within and across teams. The subthemes are: (1) New insights were established due to the collaboration, (2) Discovering the mechanisms behind the design elements provided understanding of the game’s complexity, (3) Collaboration within teams and between teams needs time and takes time and (4) Confidence that the project was going to make a difference created engagement. The 1 main theme and 4 subthemes are presented below.

In the interviews, members from all teams shared reflections about gaining personal knowledge. The main theme captures participants’ experiences of learning during the participatory process. Learning emerged through collaboration, deeper exploration of underlying mechanisms, time spent within the project, and sustained engagement driven by confidence in the project’s impact.

Through participating in the process, an expansion of knowledge was achieved, and apparent on several levels during the time it took to develop the game. The analyzed words of the team members with respect to the main theme and 4 subthemes display how this occurred. The findings indicate that it was necessary to understand the levels of complexity within game design, and also necessary to spend time in the team constellations to achieve a productive and favorable experience. Furthermore, it displays how confidence in the end product enabled the time to be spent and the understanding of the complexity to evolve.

The notion that reality is a social construct shaping both reality and knowledge was formalized and popularized by Berger and Luckmann [30] and has contributed to developing social constructivism [31]. Their idea that every individual lives within a specific societal context, which influences their perception of “reality” and “knowledge” will be highlighted in the discussion. According to them, all individuals are subjected to socialization which is the internalization of institutional or institutional-based realities. The allocation of tasks and sharing of knowledge within society are what establishes the traits of the institution [30].

The team members experienced that they had gained knowledge due to their involvement in the project. Within the teams of experts and researchers there was a preconception that games were easy to create, a belief that was contradictory to the game design team. The conception does not cohere with the complicated process that designing a serious game for the web is. It is however understandable that this notion existed on account of the team members’ inexperience of game design and interdisciplinary collaboration, which was stated to be challenging [2]. One team member expressed that it felt as if they came from disparate worlds. For example, the medical participants commonly solely used the search-engine PubMed as their source of articles for reference and knowledge [32]. The inexperience of interdisciplinary work among the medical researchers may hinder the knowledge exchange between disciplines [33]. Berger and Luckmann [30] would point to habitualization that the person believes in the reality that is at hand, and it is not until that reality is challenged that the person needs to construct a new reality. Medical researchers have been fostered within their discipline’s specific codes and principles of validation and therefore they had little prior knowledge of how games are developed or what methods are used within other disciplines. Consequently, the game design team struggled to articulate the knowledge they harbored in a manner that the other teams could comprehend regarding the game design process. Due to this communication gap, the members had to add extra time on conveying the message to overcome the knowledge barrier. This can be compared to what Polanyi referred to as tacit knowledge meaning the knowledge we hold but cannot explicate. However, the members could recognize their own knowledge limits and expressed humility during the process which seems to be a key factor for collaborations to work [7]. Previous findings have shown that it requires time to be able to learn a new discipline [8]. During the work, the members furthered their insights into the processes of game design and into how serious games in particular work. Furthermore, the most important thing was that they understood how they could contribute to the project. According to Berger and Luckmann [30] people work within an institution and follow the norms of knowledge within them. However, by working on the project the members had to step outside their own field of expertise and learn from the other fields. To make the collaboration work, the members needed to trust the other collaborators and break with the way they were accustomed to within their institution and adhere to the collaborative knowledge that the project produced.

With time and after several meetings that were described as having an open climate, the team members experienced that they became more knowledgeable. Thus, creating for them a new institutional reality [30]. It seems that building and having trust is a key element for engagement [34,35] and for people to be able to share their tacit knowledge within projects [35]. However, creating collaborations is described as time consuming [6,36]. The process illustrates how a new institutional reality was socially constructed through repeated interaction, mutual trust, and shared understanding [30].

In addition, having ample time to meet led to a common understanding of what was needed in the project and also to understanding what the others conveyed. Having time to meet and work together is considered an important factor in building trust and thus achieving successful collaborations [37,38]. Furthermore, being able to listen, assimilate and communicate information in an effort to mitigate misunderstandings or achieve common understanding within the project process are skills required of the participants involved [39]. Working toward a common goal, explicating a narrow focus, and establishing the intentions of the work are all drivers for successful collaborations [40]. The team members in the project were motivated to create a better situation for children with cancer through the serious game and that seemed to have been important enough to bridge over the challenges met during the working process. In accordance with Berger and Luckmann’s theory, the shared goal and collective motivation worked as a social foundation for constructing a common reality, reinforcing the team’s sense of purpose and enabling the institutionalization of their collaboration [30].

The study has been subjected to the recollection of the process by the interviewed participants. Memories of a process and/or events can change with time and are therefore not an accurate account of what objectively occurred. However, they are what the interviewees hold for true of the process and as such are the reality of the events as the participants perceived them at the time of interview. A strength is that the interviewees received the interpretation of the results to check and read the preliminary theme and subthemes as a means of creating credibility, which is a method used for validation of findings within thematic analysis [41]. Further quotes are presented within the subthemes to give the reader a chance to assess the accuracy of the findings and thereby the credibility. The dataset can be considered small (13 persons) but include all except one member. Hence, the article describes the process from a project where people from 3 different areas of expertise worked together on the game design.

To minimize the risk of bias, some research collaborations use external researchers to study their collaborative efforts [42], while others include all the working parties within the collaboration to be part of the design as well as the writing of the article [43]. The current study was first conceptualized by the coordinator and a senior researcher, who designed the interview guide (Multimedia Appendix 2) and performed the interviews. The idea had been discussed in the research team and final conceptualization was made by all its participants. To address credibility issues, a senior researcher preformed the interviews with the research team and the coordinator made all other interviews. During the initial analysis, segments of the material referring to the project coordinator’s role required particular attention, as the interviews indicated that the coordinator’s engagement was influential in building trust between the parties involved. This issue was addressed within the research team to ensure that the analysis remained focused on participants’ accounts rather than on individual researchers. The material was therefore examined with an emphasis on identifying patterns across interviews and interpreting statements. All members of the conceptualization process took part in the write up and final analysis of the results. Thus, a transparent approach has been used and reported.

An important methodological consideration concerns the extent to which objectivity can be maintained when the researcher is involved in the data being analyzed. From a constructivist perspective, such involvement is recognized as an inherent part of knowledge production, and thematic analysis is therefore an appropriate method [26,44]. . Braun and Clarke argue that the knowledge produced through reflexive thematic analysis is contextually based, and that researcher subjectivity should be understood as an asset for generating knowledge and should not be seen as a threat to credibility. The themes in this article are the interpretive stories that came about through the reflexive analysis of the data the participants shared which is illustrated through quotes [45]. It is the participants’ expressed reflections that were in focus when constructing the results and the part of the discussion that was based on Berger and Luckmann’s framework. This theoretical grounding supports the confirmability of the findings [46]. . It can be argued that since the interviewees had a prior relationship with the persons conducting the interviews, they might not have felt at liberty to express their opinion about the project. However, the subject under scrutiny was a completed research project and as such could not affect their working conditions. In addition, this facilitated for them to feel free to say what they wanted. It was a small project where everybody had knowledge of each other and therefore it is impossible to safely keep anonymity within the group studied. This was acknowledged through communication to all participants before joining the interview study and may have affected their responses. Furthermore, to receive a diverse data set, the participants were encouraged to describe both advantages and disadvantages within the game developmental process which provided rich data for the analysis process. There was one person who did not respond and was never interviewed. The person was a game design student who had worked with the project. Though the person’s experience would have been valuable, the information provided by the other game design students is considered sufficient [47]. Transferability to similar contexts is possible but up to the reader to determine [41].

Engagement with end-users and stakeholders, as well as information exchange between game designers and clinical experts, should be prioritized and ongoing throughout the design process. Furthermore, mechanisms for feedback to meaningfully influence design decisions should be implemented.

As trust and open communication seem to be foundational for interdisciplinary work, structured opportunities for cross-disciplinary learning become important for bridging divides and preventing misunderstandings. Hence, make time for frequent meetings in collaboration project. Furthermore, to early and clearly establish who holds decision-making power is warranted. That person acts as a bridge between teams, and establish how information should be transmitted, since ambiguity in these areas may lead to delays and confusion. Establishing clear roles, responsibilities, and communication protocols at the outset can streamline the process and empower team members to contribute effectively.

Working in interdisciplinary collaborations can create new insights as well as be challenging, especially if it is the first time participating in a project. Allowing for ample time spent working together to build trust and the participants’ confidence that the end product can make a difference. These factors improve the chances of the project achieving success.