What does this research mean for the field?

The NHMRC's conceptualization of research impact is narrower than international frameworks and inadequately incorporates lived experience and consumer priorities, necessitating a more holistic approach. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.INCREMENTAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.CHALLENGES_CONSENSUS.

What question did this study set out to answer?

To examine how health research impact is operationalised within NHMRC Impact Case Studies and evaluate the inclusion of lived experience and consumer priorities.

September 14, 2026Health Promotion Journal of AustraliaOpen Access

The National Health and Medical Research Council Research Impact Indicators: Unveiling Omissions and Blind Spots, and Positioning for Change

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

NANizam Abdu MUMaria Unwin CRCaroline Robertson

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Conceptual content analysis reveals narrow research impact definitions and minimal lived experience integration in Australian health case studies, highlighting the need for broader frameworks.

Key Points

To examine how health research impact is operationalised within NHMRC Impact Case Studies and evaluate the inclusion of lived experience and consumer priorities.
Conducted a conceptual content analysis of 45 NHMRC Impact Case Study impact statements published up to March 31, 2024.
Coded text across NHMRC domains (Knowledge, Health, Economy, Society) and international benchmark frameworks from Canada and the United Kingdom (adding Culture and Environment), with an explicit focus on mental health.
Case studies spanned 6 to 66 years following initial grant funding, with only two studies addressing mental health research.
All impact statements addressed at least two NHMRC indicators, predominantly Knowledge and Health, while cultural and environmental impacts appeared inconsistently.
References to consumer priorities and lived experience involvement were minimal, and the evaluated logic model omitted one-third of the indicators found in international frameworks.

Cite This Study

Abdu et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6aa7b41e0926e14a848b39c7 https://doi.org/10.1002/hpja.70246

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

September 14, 2026Health Promotion Journal of AustraliaOpen Access

The National Health and Medical Research Council Research Impact Indicators: Unveiling Omissions and Blind Spots, and Positioning for Change

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

NANizam Abdu MUMaria Unwin CRCaroline Robertson

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Conceptual content analysis reveals narrow research impact definitions and minimal lived experience integration in Australian health case studies, highlighting the need for broader frameworks.

Key Points

To examine how health research impact is operationalised within NHMRC Impact Case Studies and evaluate the inclusion of lived experience and consumer priorities.
Conducted a conceptual content analysis of 45 NHMRC Impact Case Study impact statements published up to March 31, 2024.
Coded text across NHMRC domains (Knowledge, Health, Economy, Society) and international benchmark frameworks from Canada and the United Kingdom (adding Culture and Environment), with an explicit focus on mental health.
Case studies spanned 6 to 66 years following initial grant funding, with only two studies addressing mental health research.
All impact statements addressed at least two NHMRC indicators, predominantly Knowledge and Health, while cultural and environmental impacts appeared inconsistently.
References to consumer priorities and lived experience involvement were minimal, and the evaluated logic model omitted one-third of the indicators found in international frameworks.

Cite This Study

Abdu et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6aa7b41e0926e14a848b39c7 https://doi.org/10.1002/hpja.70246

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark