Search

Background: The most impactful research on pediatric type 1 diabetes (T1D) remains unknown. Objective: We aimed to evaluate the characteristics and impact of the 100 most-cited articles on pediatric T1D. Materials and Methods: Using a predefined bibliometric strategy, the Scopus database was searched for high-cited papers (HCPs) published from 2001 to 2020. Articles were evaluated for data on the publication year, countries, authors, journals, topics, and types. Social network analysis was performed to visualize the interaction among countries, organizations, and authors using VOSviewer software. Results: The top 100 HCPs received 390 to 4634 citations, averaging 773.5 citations per paper (CPP). The funded HCPs (n = 50) had a higher impact (CPP 791.5). The majority of HCPs (n = 83) were collaborative. Classifying by research type, 65 studies were clinical (n = 65), risk factors (n = 27), epidemiology (n = 26), pathophysiology (n = 16), treatment outcome (n = 13), genetics (n = 12), complications (n = 3), quality of life (n = 2), and prognosis (n = 1). The number of authors involved was 1,101, affiliated with 545 organizations in 27 countries; the USA (n = 64) and the UK (n = 24) were the most productive countries, whereas Australia and the UK were the most impactful. D.M. Nathan and J.M. Lawrence were the most prolific authors, while P. Raskin and J.M. Lachin were the most impactful. Conclusions: High-income countries such as the USA, UK, and Australia contribute significantly to high-impact pediatric T1D research. Funding and collaboration improve the impact of citations in publications. Less researched areas such as treatment outcomes, genetics, complications, quality of life, and prognosis should be the focus of future research on pediatric T1D. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study looks closely at research papers about blended learning (BL) from the last 10 years (2014-2023). It pulls information from Scopus and Web of Science (WoS). By using both, it gives a full picture of what is being published and what's important in BL research. The search found 1,704 articles in Scopus and 1,545 in WoS. After putting them together and removing duplicates, there were 2,455 articles for the study. The study used a Bibliometrix R to look at who published a lot, which countries and schools did most, who worked together, and which articles got mentioned a lot. Each year, the number of articles grew by about 15.58%. Most of these, 93.00%, were articles. Universities in Australia were among those that wrote the most. "Education and Information Technologies" and "International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education" were often cited, which shows they have big roles in this research area. Some of the main researchers who connect a lot of the work are Zhu, Graham, and Jackson. It is found that keywords "higher education", "online learning", "students", and "COVID-19" are very common in discussions and help shape the research being done. While much research comes from Australia and the West, there is also growing work from Asia and the Middle East. This shows that BL is becoming important in different parts of the world. But there's a chance to get more research from less wealthy countries. This study puts together a clear picture of BL research. It looks at what's been published, who talks to who, and which places are doing the work. The research has grown who the main people are, where there's a gap between different regions, and what we should think about for the future. This can help make policies and change how we teach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The disconnect between research and clinical practice leads to research evidence that is often not useful for clinical practice. Practice-based research networks are collaborations between researchers and clinicians aimed at coproducing more useful research. Such networks are rare in the physiotherapy field. We aimed to describe (i) clinicians' motivations behind, and enablers to, participating in a network, (ii) the process of network establishment and (iii) research priorities for a practice-based network of physiotherapists in the Hunter Region of New South Wales (NSW), Australia that supports research coproduction. Methods: We describe the methods and outcomes of the three steps we used to establish the network. Step 1 involved consultation with local opinion leaders and a formative evaluation to understand clinicians' motivations behind, and enablers to, participating in a network. Step 2 involved establishment activities to generate a founding membership group and codesign a governance model. Step 3 involved mapping clinical problems through a workshop guided by systems thinking theory with local stakeholders and prioritizing research areas. Results: Through formative evaluation focus groups, we generated five key motivating themes and three key enablers for physiotherapists' involvement in the network. Establishment activities led to a founding membership group (n = 29, 67% from private practice clinics), a network vision and mission statement, and a joint governance group (9/13 [70%] are private practice clinicians). Our problem-mapping and prioritization process led to three clinically relevant priority research areas with the potential for significant change in practice and patient outcomes. Conclusions: Clinicians are motivated to break down traditional siloed research generation and collaborate with researchers to solve a wide array of issues with the delivery of care. Practice-based research networks have promise for both researchers and clinicians in the common goal of improving patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Use of epidemiological research in policy and practice is suboptimal, contributing to significant preventable morbidity and mortality. Barriers to the use of research evidence in policy include lack of research–policy engagement, lack of policy-relevant research, differences in policymaker and researcher practice norms, time constraints, difficulties in coordination, and divergent languages and reward systems. Approach and outcomes: In order to increase policy-relevant research and research uptake, we developed the output-orientated policy engagement (OOPE) model, in Australia. It integrates a foundational approach to engagement with cycles of specific activity focused around selected research outputs. Foundational elements include measures to increase recognition and valuing of policymaker expertise, emphasis on policy uptake, policy awareness of the research group's work, regular policy engagement and policy-relevant capacity-building. Specific activities include (i) identification of an "output"—usually at draft stage—and program of work which are likely to be of interest to policymakers; (ii) initial engagement focusing on sharing "preview" evidence from this output, with an invitation to provide input into this and to advise on the broader program of work; and (iii) if there is sufficient interest, formation of a researcher–policy-maker partnership to shape and release the output, as well as inform the program of work. This cycle is repeated as the relationship continues and is deepened. As well as supporting policy-informed evidence generation and research-aware policymakers, the output-orientated model has been found to be beneficial in fostering the following: a pragmatic starting place for researchers, in often large and complex policy environments; purposeful and specific engagement, encouraging shared expectations; non-transactional engagement around common evidence needs, whereby researchers are not meeting with policymakers with the expectation of receiving funding; built-in translation; time and resource efficiency; relationship-building; mutual learning; policy-invested researchers and research-invested policy-makers; and tangible policy impacts. A case study outlines how the output-orientated approach supported researcher–policymaker collaboration to generate new evidence regarding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cardiovascular disease risk and to apply this to national guidelines. Conclusion: Output-orientated policy engagement provides a potentially useful pragmatic model to catalyse and support partnerships between researchers and policymakers, to increase the policy-relevance and application of epidemiological evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research is central to high functioning health services alongside clinical care and health professional training. The impact of embedded research includes delivery of high-quality care and improved patient outcomes. Evaluations of research impact help health service leadership ensure investments lead to the greatest healthcare benefits for patients. This study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the impact of research investment from 2008 to 2018 at Townsville Hospital and Health Service (THHS), a regional Hospital and Health Service in Queensland, Australia. The evaluation also sought to identify contextual conditions that enable or hinder intended impacts. Methods: A mixed-methods realist-informed evaluation was conducted using documentation, interviews with 15 staff and available databases to identify and measure research investments, impacts and contextual conditions influencing impact outcomes. Results: Between 2008 and 2018, THHS increased resources for research by funding research projects, employing research personnel, building research-enabling facilities, hosting research events, and providing research education and training. Clinical practice, policy and workforce impacts were successful in isolated pockets, championed by individual researchers and facilitated by their policy and community-of-practice networks. However, there was little organizational-level support for continuity of research and implementation into practice and policy. Availability of research supports varied geographically across THHS, and across disciplines. Conclusion: Definitive steps in the development of THHS as a credible and productive research centre and leading hospital research centre in Northern Australia are evident. Continuing investments should address support for the research continuum through to translation and establish ongoing, systematic processes for evaluating research investment and impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite increasing investments in academic health science centres (AHSCs) in Australia and an expectation that they will serve as vehicles for knowledge translation and exchange, there is limited empirical evidence on whether and how they deliver impact. The aim of this study was to examine and compare the early development of four Australian AHSCs to explore how they are enacting their impact-focused role. Methods: A descriptive qualitative methodology was employed across four AHSCs located in diverse health system settings in urban and regional locations across Australia. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews with 15 academic, industry and executive board members of participating AHSCs. The analysis combined inductive and deductive elements, with inductive categories mapped to deductive themes corresponding to the study aims. Results: AHSCs in Australia are in an emergent state of development and are following different pathways. Whilst varied approaches to support research translation are apparent, there is a dominant focus on structure and governance, as opposed to action-oriented roles and processes to deliver strategic goals. Balancing collaboration and competition between partners presents a challenge, as does identifying appropriate ways to evaluate impact. Conclusion: The early stage of development of AHSCs in Australia presents an important opportunity for formative learning and evaluation to optimise their enactment of knowledge mobilisation processes for impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Governments and funding agencies increasingly expect researchers to demonstrate the impact of their work not only within the academy but also for a range of stakeholders beyond academia. Whilst arts researchers have tended to resist impact measurement, in this article, we will describe one form of demonstrating impact, namely through writing impact narratives in order to argue that such writing can be effective in promoting learning and reflection on the researcher's work in the society. We provide collaborative autoethnographic narrative accounts of our experiences as arts education researchers, located in Australia and Finland, of developing research impact narratives and consider the ways in which the development of impact narratives can shape researcher identities, research processes and epistemic cultures of disciplines. We suggest that impact narratives are inevitably retrospective but may also be future-oriented in the ways in which they structure ongoing research processes and future projects and their activities providing a space for 'narrative learning' and professional transformation. We also suggest that arts educators experiment with and explore the potential for narrative impact statements to inform and engage society beyond academia with research findings and outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the multiple tensions arising in an Australian university and public sector collaboration that aimed to investigate an obesity intervention. A key site of conflict with the external collaborators emerged when we, the researchers, focusing on the experiences of marginalized local people, presented research findings that were at odds with the dominant understanding of obesity that framed the public health intervention. From those with a range of roles in the public sector, we received claims of misrepresentation and requests to change or not publicly release certain research findings. Drawing on the 'policy learning framework' of Dunlop and Radaelli, we examine these epistemic conflicts and point to the Achilles' heels of the 'engagement and impact' agenda. From the perspective of government, the inherent weakness stems from the lack of control in a partnership, and from the perspective of academics, it is the danger of undermining trust in universities and the knowledge academics produce, through the process of engaging with government and being party to research that is designed to shore up a position that government has already decided upon. This case study has implications for academic and government collaborators who may benefit from explicit planning about how to negotiate discord around the processes of learning that occur in and across research, policy, and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Indigenous research leadership can enhance research benefits to Indigenous communities. Our research investigates how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (henceforth Indigenous) leadership is expressed in the context of academic research, and how Indigenous leadership is supported or constrained in such context. This exploratory study includes semi-structured interviews with 20 Indigenous Australian researchers and document analysis. The thematic content analysis suggests that 'Indigenous leadership in research' refers to features, qualities or processes that enable certain outcomes, rather than formal ranking. Our research proposes a model connecting Indigenous leadership features in research with the achievement of (social) research impacts. The performance measures valued in academic research reflect a limited part of leadership as expressed by interviewees, hindering the achievement of higher hierarchical positions by those who holistically pursue such a leadership model. We suggest changes in the incentive structure and performance measures to better support Indigenous leadership in research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Internationally, non-academic research impact is assessed by governments as part of evaluating the quality of publicly funded research. A case study method was used to investigate the non-academic impact of Australian social work research. Interviews were conducted with fifteen leading researchers about outputs (research products, such as publications and reports), engagement (interaction between researchers and end-users outside academia to transfer knowledge, methods or resources) and impact (social or economic contributions of research). Twelve case studies were prepared using a standardised template. Content analysis highlighted examples of impact, and theoretical and in vivo coding uncovered processes of engagement and impact. Different types of engagements with research end-users influenced impact in three areas: legislation and policy; practices and service delivery; and quality of life of community members. Engagement and impact were intertwined as research altered policy discourses and illuminated hidden social issues, preparing ground for subsequent, more direct impact. Likewise, academic and non-academic impacts were intertwined as research rigour and academic credibility were perceived to leverage influence. There was no evidence of achieving impact simply through the trickle-down effect of scholarly publication. The findings broaden understandings of how research influences policy and practice and iterative and indirect relationships between engagement and impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research funders and managers can play a critical role in supporting the translation of knowledge into action by facilitating the brokering of knowledge and partnerships. We use semi-structured interviews with a research funding agency, the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), to explore (i) ways that funders can facilitate knowledge brokering, the (ii) barriers to, and (iii) enablers for, facilitating knowledge brokering, and (iv) the individual skills and attributes for research program funders and managers to be effective brokers. Based on these findings, we generate three considerations for research funders elsewhere, in particular R4D funders, seeking to build capacity for knowledge brokering: (i) formalise the process and practice, (ii) develop shared language and understanding, and (iii) build individual competencies and capabilities. Our findings complement the existing literature with a context specific analysis of how research funders can facilitate knowledge brokering, and by identifying the barriers and enablers in doing so., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

This paper reflects upon humanities 'interfaces' between academia and society via an analysis of two recent Australian policy moments. First, I reflect on the inaugural Engagement and Impact (E & I) Assessment of university research, undertaken in 2018 by the Australian Research Council (ARC). The EI 2018 points to the rich contribution of humanities interfaces to social function of contemporary research and the pivotal role that communication and media studies play. Second, I discuss the effort over the past 10–15 years to conceptualise and fashion an e-research infrastructure for humanities and social sciences research. Despite leadership in e-research infrastructure in sciences Australia lagged in addressing requirements of humanities and social science. Both cases show the stakes in digital humanities interfaces, which are vital to research and its social futures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Quality scholarly research outputs, such as peer reviewed journal articles published in reputable journals, are essential for early career researchers' (ECRs) vocational success while also offering benefits for their institutions. Research outputs destined for audiences beyond academia are also increasingly valued by funders, end users, and tertiary institutions. While there is an expectation that ECRs may create diverse research outputs for an array of audiences, the kinds of research output texts produced by ECRs for varied audiences warrants further investigation. In addition, the routes of dissemination that ECRs use to share their academic research outputs to secure impact beyond academia are not well understood. Drawing on semi‐structured interviews of 30 respondents in Australia and Japan, we explore the research‐sharing practices of ECRs, finding that ECRs may potentially create a wide range of research‐informed texts for end users beyond academia, using an array of methods for dissemination. The examples of the output text types and dissemination routes we provide in this paper can be used to inspire ECRs and also more senior academics to share their research more broadly, and perhaps more effectively, and can be used by publishers to improve research impact and support ECRs' research translation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health systems in Australia and worldwide are increasingly expected to conduct research and quality improvement activities in addition to delivering clinical care and training health professionals. This study aims to inform a research impact evaluation at a regional Australian Hospital and Health Service by developing a programme theory showing how research investment is expected to have impact.Methods: This qualitative study, representing the first phase of a larger mixed methods research impact evaluation at the Townsville Hospital and Health Service (THHS), adopts a realist-informed design involving the development of a programme theory. Data were obtained between February and May 2019 from strategic documentation and interviews with six current and former health service executives and senior employees. Inductive themes were integrated into a conceptual framework to visually represent the programme theory.Results: Research at THHS has developed organically as the service has matured into a regional tertiary referral service serving a diverse rural and remote population across northern Queensland. Throughout this journey, individual THHS leaders often adopted a research development mantle despite disincentives arising from a performance-driven reporting and activity-based funding service context. Impact expectations from research investment at THHS were identified in the categories of enhanced research activity and capacity among clinicians, and improved clinical practice, health workforce capability and stability, and patient and population health. Seven contextual factors were identified as potential enablers or obstacles to these impact expectations and ambitions.Conclusions: By identifying both relevant impact types and key contextual factors, this study offers programme theory to inform a planned research impact evaluation at THHS. The conceptual framework may be useful in other regionally based health service settings. More broadly, there are opportunities for future research to test and refine hybrid versions of linear and realist research impact evaluation models that combine resource-intensive, theory-driven approaches with policy practicality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research is an important activity that informs knowledge and practice. The research culture within the Australian Health Information Management (HIM) profession has not been previously reported. Objective: This study explored the perceptions of HIM practitioners about research in their role to establish if there is a research culture in the Australian HIM profession. Method: An online survey was distributed to the HIM community using a snowball recruitment strategy. Results: Of the 149 respondents, more than half (54%) identified they possessed research skills from prior education, whilst 40% considered they had a strong knowledgebase in conducting research. However, only a quarter of respondents indicated that they should undertake research in their role. Barriers to undertaking research included recognition, organisational support and time. Discussion: The findings from this study reflected other studies within clinical workforces. The lack of recognition and support to incorporate research into practitioner roles has implications for the profession and its body of knowledge. Conclusion: Advocating for research to be incorporated into practitioner roles is required to inform knowledge and practice. Increased professional development opportunities may create a stronger research culture within the HIM profession in Australia and strengthen the position of the profession within health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research aims to investigate whether multi/inter-disciplinary research activities are related to research impact and publication counts of scholars. Since researchers with very high levels of multi/inter-disciplinarity might be able to target complex problems, we would expect them to receive more credits than their colleagues with a stronger disciplinary orientation. We analysed Web of Science (WoS) indexed publications of all associate and full professors from a random sample of Australian universities in physics, chemistry and biology (1980–2014). Australian Fields of Research (FoR) codes assigned to journals were used to calculate the diversification of authors' publications. The number of citations in the first 3 years, number of 10% most frequently cited papers, and citation impact percentile were used for impact assessment. A few indicators were used to measure the diversity including 'extent of diversification (ED)' (number of distinct FoR codes divided by the number of publications) and 'diversification ratio (DR)' (ratio of the publications falling outside the dominant code to the total number of publications). A total of 47.76% of biologists' publications, 35.23% of physicists' publications and 20.36% of chemists' publications were published in journals assigned to fields other than the Australian associate and full professors' fields. Publications from biologists had the largest values of diversification. Women (compared with men) and associate professors (compared with full professors) in chemistry, biology and overall were more probably to publish diversely. ED was negatively correlated with output and citation impact. DR also had a negative but weak correlation with the number of publications and 10% most frequently cited paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although in Australia disability is receiving unprecedented attention with the rollout of major reforms, the body of research on disability to inform policy and practice has been found “not fit for purpose”. This scoping review of empirical research papers published by Australian social work authors between 2007 and 2015 investigated the quantity, nature, and scope of social work research on disability in Australia. We found a steady growth, an annual average of 13.8 papers, and a total of 124. Social work disability research makes a distinctive contribution; it is contextualised in service systems or policy, has a greater focus on community and civic participation and social relationships, and concentrates on adults, with either intellectual disability or traumatic brain injury. These research strengths provide foundations for building the profession’s research capacity and informing its practice and contribution to the multidisciplinary field of disability. IMPLICATIONS Service system reform is increasing engagement of social workers with people with disabilities, yet disability has a low profile in the profession.Social work disability research has strengths in understanding service systems, social relationships, and strategies for social and civic participation, particularly with adults with cognitive disabilities.Increased attention to disability in qualifying and higher degree programs will better prepare students for complex practice and develop the distinctive contribution of social work research in this interdisciplinary field. 在澳大利亚，随着一些重要改革的出台，残障者受到前所未有的关注。但用以参谋政策、咨询实践而针对残障者身体的研究却“并不如人意”。本文根据澳大利亚社会工作者发表于2007至2015年的实证性文章，对社会工作之研究残障问题的数量、性质和范围做了分析。分析发现，研究数量有稳步增长；每年约13.8篇；总数为124篇。社会工作对残障的研究贡献十分明显；它与政策服务体系结合紧密，偏重于社区和公民参与及社会关系，焦点在或智障或大脑创伤的成年人。这些研究上的优长为营建该行业的研究能力、参谋实践、贡献残障多学科事业打下了基础。 [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The quality and quantity of social work research are not simply a matter of academic inquiry; they have real-world implications for practitioners, policy makers and the community. Internationally, research assessment exercises being undertaken in university sectors are shaping notions of research productivity, quality and impact. This paper advances empirical understandings of the nature of social work research in Australia, through an inter-disciplinary and cross-national comparative analysis of performance data reported in the research assessment exercises Excellence in Research for Australia 2012 and 2015, and the UK's Research Excellence Framework 2014. It found that, compared to other social science disciplines, social work in Australia is a mid-level performer in terms of quantity and above average in terms of quality but, when compared to social work and social policy research in the UK, quality is rated less highly. It argues for more transparent criteria to assess quality within peer-review research assessments and careful consideration of ways to document and evaluate research impact that are relevant to the discipline, capable of capturing the many and varied ways in which research can influence policy and practice over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians (hereafter respectfully Indigenous Australians) claim that they have been over-researched without corresponding research benefit. This claim raises two questions. The first, which has been covered to some extent in the literature, is about what type(s) of research are likely to achieve benefits for Indigenous people. The second is how researchers report the impact of their research for Indigenous people. This systematic review of Indigenous health reviews addresses the second enquiry. Methods: Fourteen electronic databases were systematically searched for Indigenous health reviews which met eligibility criteria. Two reviewers assessed their characteristics and methodological rigour using an a priori protocol. Three research hypotheses were stated and tested: (1) reviews address Indigenous health priority needs; (2) reviews adopt best practice guidelines on research conduct and reporting in respect to methodological transparency and rigour, as well as acceptability and appropriateness of research implementation to Indigenous people; and (3) reviews explicitly report the incremental impacts of the included studies and translation of research. We argue that if review authors explicitly address each of these three hypotheses, then the impact of research for Indigenous peoples' health would be explicated. Results: Seventy-six reviews were included; comprising 55 journal articles and 21 Australian Government commissioned evidence review reports. While reviews are gaining prominence and recognition in Indigenous health research and increasing in number, breadth and complexity, there is little reporting of the impact of health research for Indigenous people. This finding raises questions about the relevance of these reviews for Indigenous people, their impact on policy and practice and how reviews have been commissioned, reported and evaluated. Conclusions: The findings of our study serve two main purposes. First, we have identified knowledge and methodological gaps in documenting Indigenous health research impact that can be addressed by researchers and policy makers. Second, the findings provide the justification for developing a framework allowing researchers and funding bodies to structure future Indigenous health research to improve the reporting and assessment of impact over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Primary healthcare researchers are under increasing pressure to demonstrate measurable and lasting improvement in clinical practice and healthcare policy as a result of their work. It is therefore important to understand the effectiveness of the research dissemination strategies used. The aim of this paper is to describe the pathways for research impact that have been achieved across several government-funded primary healthcare projects, and the effectiveness of these methods as perceived by their Chief Investigators.Methods: The project used an online survey to collect information about government-funded primary healthcare research projects. Chief Investigators were asked how they disseminated their findings and how this achieved impact in policy and practice. They were also asked to express their beliefs regarding the most effective means of achieving research impact and describe how this occurred.Results: Chief Investigators of 17 projects indicated that a number of dissemination strategies were used but that professional networks were the most effective means of promoting uptake of their research findings. Utilisation of research findings for clinical practice was most likely to occur in organisations or among individual practitioners who were most closely associated with the research team, or when research findings were included in educational programmes involving clinical practice. Uptake of both policy- and practice-related research was deemed most successful if intermediary organisations such as formal professional networks were engaged in the research. Successful primary healthcare researchers had developed critical relationships with intermediary organisations within primary healthcare before the initiation of the research and had also involved them in the design. The scale of research impact was influenced by the current policy environment, the type and significance of the results, and the endorsement (or lack thereof) of professional bodies.Conclusions: Chief Investigators believed that networks were the most effective means of research dissemination. Researchers who were embedded in professional, clinical or policy-focussed intermediary organisations, or had developed partnerships with clinical services, which had a vested interest in the research findings, were more able to describe a direct impact of their research. This suggests that development of these relationships and engagement of these stakeholders by primary healthcare researchers is a vital step for optimal research utilisation in the primary healthcare setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Numerous academics have argued that if a field is to progress, attention needs to be paid to how future generations of researchers are being prepared. To date, data generated on research training in physical education and sport pedagogy (PESP) have primarily focused on students undertaking doctoral programmes with a formal coursework component, which is the model predominantly used in the USA. The traditional master-apprentice model is still, however, the dominant model in many countries, including Australia, and there is a dearth of research on this model of research preparation. Hence, this study was an effort to capture the perspectives and experiences of doctoral students (DSs) and early career researchers (ECRs) who are/were engaged in programmes employing the apprentice model of training.The question we sought to examine was ‘what do PESP doctoral students and early career researchers perceive as the facilitators and challenges associated with learning to be researchers?’. The participants in this study included eight DSs and seven ECRs who were based in Australian and New Zealand institutions. Data were generated through a questionnaire that sought to identify participants’ various research training experiences, a workshop that brought participants together to discuss their research training, and follow-up individual semi-structured interviews. While much of the data generated through this study related to the importance of developing such generic research skills as writing, grant writing and presenting at conferences, participants also discussed PESP-specific skills and dispositions, including particular orientations towards research impact, and the development of research culture. Findings are discussed in reference to the neoliberalisation of education and questions are raised about the forms of research training developing researchers in PESP might need if they are to thrive as researchers within and beyond the field. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Social work makes an important contribution to child protection practice and policy in Australia, but data are limited about the discipline's contribution to research. The aim of this scoping review was to examine the quantity and nature of Australian social work child protection research for the period 2007-14. A comprehensive search of nine bibliographic data bases identified 255 peer-reviewed articles. The papers were authored by 287 researchers, most of whom published only one paper during the period. The research was published in seventeen Australian and thirty-five international journals. Non-empirical papers and those using qualitative methodologies were most prevalent, and there was a lack of research depth and quantum on particular child protection topics. The findings indicate that developing more sustained programmes of research, underpinned by a balanced portfolio of methods and approaches, would maximise the potential for research impact on child protection policy and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic intensified debates about the desirability of integrating health research systems into healthcare systems. An excellent evaluation undertaken prior to the pandemic examined a purposeful strategy to improve healthcare through an expansion in research capacity in the Townsville Hospital and Health Service (THHS), a regional service in northern Queensland. This comment puts that evaluation into a rapidly developing wider context, drawing on other work showing an association between research engagement in healthcare organisations and their improved healthcare. In most previous studies this impact arose as a by-product of the research activity. The Townsville scheme went further. But while the evaluation identified some progress and impacts, they were patchy, not system-wide. Recent pre-pandemic studies showed that going even further and integrating a health research system across a national healthcare system markedly improved healthcare, despite continuing challenges. The UK's research experiences during COVID-19 are giving additional momentum to this approach globally., (© 2023 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

Brown et al show that research investments in an organization with a research and translation mandate can make important gains for research impact across domains, including quality of care and patient outcomes. Their multi-stage mixed methods evaluation provides insight into research capacity development in rural health systems in Australia and draws attention towards persistent geographic inequities. In extension of this important contribution, here, a focus on the "what and the why" of embedded research is offered. Specific attention is paid to the sustainability potentials of systematized data capture systems, funding-operational mandate alignments, researcher-scientist career pathways, and networked approaches to mentorship., (© 2023 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

Following the Townsville Hospital and Health Service (THHS) strategic revision as a "research-based" institution, Brown et al have investigated the impact of THHS research, and its key drivers, based on 15 stakeholder interviews and two quantitative indicators. This commentary argues that the quantitative analyses and findings would have benefitted from applying evaluative bibliometrics, hopefully, conducted by experienced bibliometricians. We present the potential of bibliometrics for assessing the scholarly impact of research, as well as a few examples of its application to the case of THHS, for informing research policies and strategies., (© 2023 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

Background: There remains a concern that Indigenous Australians have been over-researched without corresponding improvements in their health; this trend is applicable to most Indigenous populations globally. This debate article has a dual purpose: 1) to open a frank conversation about the value of research to Indigenous Australian populations; and 2) to stimulate ways of thinking about potential resolutions to the lack of progress made in the Indigenous research benefit debate. Discussion: Capturing the meaning of research benefit takes the form of ethical value-oriented methodological considerations in the decision-making processes of Indigenous research endeavours. Because research practices come from Western knowledge bases, attaining such positions in research means reconciling both Indigenous and Western knowledge systems to produce new methodologies that guide planning, evaluating and monitoring of research practices as necessary. Increasingly, more sophisticated performance measures have been implemented to ensure academic impact and benefits are captured. Assessing societal and other non-academic impacts and benefits however, has not been accorded corresponding attention. Research reform has only focussed on research translation in more recent years. The research impact debate must take account of the various standards of accountability (to whom), impact priorities (for whom), positive and negative impacts, and biases that operate in describing impact and measuring benefit. Summary: A perennial question in Indigenous research discourse is whether the abundance of research conducted; purportedly to improve health, is justified and benefits Indigenous people in ways that are meaningful and valued by them. Different research stakeholders have different conceptions of the value and nature of research, its conduct, what it should achieve and the kinds of benefits expected. We need to work collaboratively and listen more closely to the voice of Indigenous Australians to better understand, demonstrate and measure health research benefits. The authors conclude that as an imperative, a systematic benefit assessment strategy that includes identification of research priorities and planning, monitoring and evaluation components needs to be developed and implemented across research projects. In Indigenous health research, this will often mean adopting a benefit-led approach by changing the way research is done and preferencing alternative research methodologies. As a point of departure to improving impact and reaching mutually beneficial outcomes for researchers and partners in Indigenous health research, we need to routinise the assessment of benefit from outset of research as one of the standards toward which we work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reports results from a survey of academic social scientists in Australian universities on reported levels of research utilisation by non-academic users. Using the scale of research utilisation we examine levels of research impact and explore a range of variables to understand factors influencing the use of academic social science research by policy-makers and practitioners. The results indicate that research uptake is enhanced through mechanisms that improve research transfer and the intensity of interactions between academic researchers and users. Our findings provide insights into how the impact of social science research can be improved and draws attention to factors that need to be considered in efforts to evaluate and enhance the impact of academic social research. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

With the application of neoliberal thinking to the higher education sector, measures of research quality and utility have proliferated in efforts to increase academic accountability, innovation, and contributions to public policy. We intend to reignite discussion about community activism and the role of the academic in response to trends in higher education policy and recent debate in Australia about research quality assessment and policy relevance. We challenge the common portrayal of the public sector as the sole locus of policy-making and argue the case for greater recognition of the role of the community sector and its research partners in policy development and implementation - one that is not given due attention in the discourse on or in measures of research value and impact. Informed by recent literature on governance and interpretative approaches to policy analysis, we draw on our combined experience conducting research with two Australian movements at the forefront of reforms to property rights institutions, legal standards, and norms relating to social and economic equity to outline the institutional tensions and structural impediments facing researchers working with the non-government sector. The paper documents the progressive roles the academic can play in such work, arguing that institutional change is required within the tertiary sector to support researchers to build closer, more trusting research partnerships in which due attention is given to social impact and relevance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Synthetic biology [synbio] applications have the potential to assist in addressing significant global health and environmental challenges. Australian research institutes are investing in formative research to develop synbio technologies capable of meeting these challenges. Alongside the laboratory research, investigating the broader social, institutional, and ethical considerations that synbio presents has been a priority. We conducted targeted qualitative research to uncover the barriers and opportunities for a range of multisectoral stakeholders identified as potential end-users of the science under development. The research provides insights into the research implementation environment for three synthetic biology applications: (1) gene editing cane toads (Rhinella marina) to reduce their environmental impact; (2) engineering bacteriophages to combat antimicrobial resistance in humans; and (3) engineering microbes to improve biomining efficiency in the mining industry. In-depth interviews (N = 23) with government, research and civil society representatives revealed key challenges in the impact pathway for each application. The strongest themes uncovered during interviews related to perceived negative public attitudes towards genetic technologies, a lack of investment in critical research infrastructure, unclear regulatory pathways and the presence of a strong social and environmental imperative underpinning technology development. These findings reveal specific entry points for further engagement with the most immediate end-users of synbio. Separate from research on public attitudes to synbio, the cases highlight the various hurdles to achieving research impact, according to experts who will likely use, approve or invest in these applications in the future. The themes uncovered inform avenues for strengthening engagement and research coordination in Australia and elsewhere., (© 2022 The Authors. Biotechnology Journal published by Wiley-VCH GmbH.)

Individual researchers and the organisations for which they work are interested in comparative measures of research performance for a variety of purposes. Such comparisons are facilitated by quantifiable measures that are easily obtained and offer convenience and a sense of objectivity. One popular measure is the journal impact factor, based on citation rates, but it is a measure intended for journals rather than individuals. Moreover, educational research publications are not well represented in the databases most widely used for calculation of citation measures, leading to doubts about the usefulness of such measures in education. Newer measures and data sources offer alternatives that provide wider representation of education research. However, research has shown that citation rates vary according to discipline and that valid comparisons depend upon the availability of discipline-specific benchmarks. This study sought to provide such benchmarks for Australian educational researchers based on analysis of citation measures obtained for the Australian education professoriate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The objective of this study is to develop a framework to measure the impact of primary health care research, describe how it could be used and propose a method for its validation. Design: Literature review and critical appraisal of existing models of research impact, and integration of three into a comprehensive impact framework. Setting: Centre of Research Excellence focusing on access to primary health care services in Australia. Participants: Not applicable. Interventions: Not applicable. Main outcome measure: The Health Services Research Impact Framework, integrating the strengths of three existing models of research impact. Conclusion: In order to ensure relevance to policy and practice and to provide accountability for funding, it is essential that the impact of health services research is measured and monitored over time. Our framework draws upon previously published literature regarding specific measures of research impact. We organise this information according to the main area of impact (i.e. research related, policy, service and societal) and whether the impact originated with the researcher (i.e. producer push) or the end-user (i.e. user pull). We propose to test the utility of the framework by recording and monitoring the impact of our own research and that of other groups of primary health care researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers, as well as decision-makers and practitioners, often wonder what becomes of the results of research in the social sciences. At present in Australia, we know very little on the subject. This article reports results from a survey of academic sociologists and criminologists about the utilization of their research. It tests an empirical model that derives its dependent and independent variables from prior studies on knowledge utilization, and defines research utilization as a six-stage cumulative process. Results indicate that while there are decreasing reported levels of research utilization across the stages by practitioners and professionals, academic sociologists and criminologists report their research is more often used conceptually. Variables that distinguished respondents who report high levels of utilization were investments in linkage and exchange mechanisms. The discussion is placed in a broader context related to measuring the impact of social research and the factors that inhibit and facilitate this process. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Abstract: Research and researchers influence the genesis and development of public health policy in limited but essential ways. Surveys and interviews with 36 peer-nominated “highly influential” Australian public health researchers found they engaged in a breadth of strategies that included rigorous but targeted research design, multilateral collaboration, multiple methods of research dissemination and promotion (including tactical use of the media), and purposeful development of bridging relationships. Researchers’ ability to understand the worlds of research, policy and the media and to speak their languages (or to work with others who fulfilled this role) was a key factor. Advocacy was seen as fundamental by some but was disparaged by others. Influential behaviours were guided by values and beliefs about the principles underlying traditional science and the contrasting ethos of contemporary research. This study may help researchers consider their own policy-related roles, strategies and relationships in the context of increasing calls for research that serves economic and/or social goals. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: An Aboriginal-developed empowerment and social and emotional wellbeing program, known as Family Wellbeing (FWB), has been found to strengthen the protective factors that help Indigenous Australians to deal with the legacy of colonisation and intergenerational trauma. This article reviews the research that has accompanied the implementation of the program, over a 23 year period. The aim is to assess the long-term impact of FWB research and identify the key enablers of research impact and the limitations of the impact assessment exercise. This will inform more comprehensive monitoring of research impact into the future., Methods: To assess impact, the study took an implementation science approach, incorporating theory of change and service utilisation frameworks, to create a logic model underpinned by Indigenous research principles. A research impact narrative was developed based on mixed methods analysis of publicly available data on: 1) FWB program participation; 2) research program funding; 3) program outcome evaluation (nine studies); and 4) accounts of research utilisation (seven studies)., Results: Starting from a need for research on empowerment identified by research users, an investment of $2.3 million in research activities over 23 years produced a range of research outputs that evidenced social and emotional wellbeing benefits arising from participation in the FWB program. Accounts of research utilisation confirmed the role of research outputs in educating participants about the program, and thus, facilitating more demand (and funding acquisition) for FWB. Overall research contributed to 5,405 recorded participants accessing the intervention. The key enablers of research impact were; 1) the research was user- and community-driven; 2) a long-term mutually beneficial partnership between research users and researchers; 3) the creation of a body of knowledge that demonstrated the impact of the FWB intervention via different research methods; 4) the universality of the FWB approach which led to widespread application., Conclusions: The FWB research impact exercise reinforced the view that assessing research impact is best approached as a "wicked problem" for which there are no easy fixes. It requires flexible, open-ended, collaborative learning-by-doing approaches to build the evidence base over time. Steps and approaches that research groups might take to build the research impact knowledge base within their disciplines are discussed., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Issues Addressed: The significant investment in health research has resulted in an increased focus to determine suitable approaches to measure health promotion research impact. This research was undertaken at the request of a nationally competitive research organisation that funds health promotion research, to explore how Chief Investigators (CIs) on their funded projects understood research impact, its measurement and associated challenges., Methods: Participants were required to be or have been a CI on an Australian competitive research (exploratory or intervention) grant focussed on health promotion. The qualitative study used thematic analysis from one-on-one interviews. Themes were created and descriptive quotes were selected to illustrate the main findings., Results: The majority of participants were female (n = 13) working at a university (n = 13). Three themes emerged: a) defining health research impact; b) complexity and simplicity of measuring health research impact; c) challenges of measuring health research impact: i) differing language; ii) differing assessment; iii) attribution and timing; and iv) resourcing and skills., Conclusion: Researchers recognised that there are significant challenges in measuring the impact of health promotion research. The most significant factors identified by participants were the disciplinary background of the researchers undertaking the measurement, their skills and experience and the resources (including time) available to assess impact. SO WHAT?: Research impact assessment is complex, time consuming and requires specific skills to facilitate measurement of impact provision of funding for this activity in research grants and research impact training is required., (© 2020 Australian Health Promotion Association.)

Background: Health and medical research funding agencies are increasingly interested in measuring the impact of funded research. We present a research impact case study for the first four years of an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council funded Centre of Research Excellence in Cardiovascular Outcomes Improvement (2016-2020). The primary aim of this paper was to explore the application of a research impact matrix to assess the impact of cardiovascular outcomes improvement research., Methods: We applied a research impact matrix developed from a systematic review of existing methodological frameworks used to measure research impact. This impact matrix was used as a bespoke tool to identify and understand various research impacts over different time frames. Data sources included a review of existing internal documentation from the research centre and publicly available information sources, informal iterative discussions with 10 centre investigators, and confirmation of information from centre grant and scholarship recipients., Results: By July 2019, the impact on the short-term research domain category included over 41 direct publications, which were cited over 87 times (median journal impact factor of 2.84). There were over 61 conference presentations, seven PhD candidacies, five new academic collaborations, and six new database linkages conducted. The impact on the mid-term research domain category involved contributions towards the development of a national cardiac registry, cardiovascular guidelines, application for a Medicare Benefits Schedule reimbursement item number, introduction of patient-reported outcome measures into several databases, and the establishment of nine new industry collaborations. Evidence of long-term impacts were described as the development and use of contemporary management for aortic stenosis, a cardiovascular risk prediction model and prevention targets in several data registries, and the establishment of cost-effectiveness for stenting compared to surgery., Conclusions: We considered the research impact matrix a feasible tool to identify evidence of academic and policy impact in the short- to midterm; however, we experienced challenges in capturing long-term impacts. Cost containment and broader economic impacts represented another difficult area of impact to measure.

Background: Understanding why research is conducted may help address the under-utilisation of research. This study examined the reasons for childhood obesity prevention knowledge production in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, and the factors influencing research choices from the perspective of the researchers and health policy agencies contributing to the research., Methods: A literature search of SCOPUS and ISI Web of Knowledge (affiliation and key word searches) was conducted to compile a database of NSW childhood obesity research outputs, published between 2000 and 2015 (n = 543). Descriptive statistics were used to quantify outputs by research type, differentiating measurement, descriptive, and intervention research, systematic reviews and other publications. Interviews were conducted with a sample of researchers drawn from the database (n = 13) and decision makers from health policy agencies who funded and contributed to childhood obesity research in NSW (n = 15). Researcher interviews examined views about societal impacts, why and under what circumstances the research was conducted. Decision-maker interviews examined policy agency research investment and how research was used in decision making. Content analysis and a thematic approach was used to analyse the interview transcripts., Results: The research in this case was conducted for mix of reasons including those traditionally associated with academic inquiry, as well as intentions to influence policy and practice. Differences in funding mechanisms, administrative and employment arrangements, and 'who' initiated the research, created differing incentives and perspectives for knowledge production. Factors associated with the characteristics and experience of the individuals involved also influenced goals, as did the type of research conducted. Policy agencies played a role in directing research to address policy needs., Conclusions: The findings of this study confirm that researchers are strongly influenced by their working environment. Funding schemes and other incentives to support policy relevant knowledge production are important. Contextual factors such as policy priorities, policy-driven research funding and the embedded nature or strong connections between some researchers and the policy agencies involved, are likely to have influenced the extent to which policy goals were reported in this study.

Objective: There is a growing need for researchers to demonstrate impact, which is reliant on successful research translation. The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council funded a Centre of Research Excellence in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery (CRE-Stroke) to enhance collaborations between researchers conducting different types of stroke rehabilitation research. The purpose of this study was to explore opinions about research translation held by CRE-Stroke researchers conducting preclinical and clinical research, in terms of scope, importance, responsibility and perceived skills and knowledge., Design: Mixed-methods study, comprising a paper-based survey and semistructured interviews. Interview data were inductively coded and thematically analysed. Survey and interview data were compared and synthesised., Participants: 55 (7 preclinical, 48 clinical) researchers attending a CRE-Stroke research forum completed a paper-based survey. Semistructured interviews with 22 CRE-Stroke (5 preclinical, 17 clinical) researchers were conducted., Results: Research translation was described as translating to other research and translating to clinical practice and policy. Most researchers (n=54, 98%) reported that research translation was important, particularly in terms of generating research impact, but the most common sign of project completion reported by researchers (n=7, 100% preclinical; n=37, 77% clinical) was publication. Most researchers (preclinical n=4, 57%; clinical n=37, 77%) reported having responsibility for translating research, but less than half reported having the necessary skills (n=1, 14% preclinical; n=17, 35% clinical) and knowledge (n=3, 43% preclinical; n=19, 40% clinical). Differing opinions about who should be responsible for translating findings to clinical practice were expressed., Conclusions: Stroke rehabilitation researchers appear confident to translate their research via the traditional mechanism of publications. To optimise impact, clarity is needed regarding who is best placed to translate research findings to clinical practice and policy. Education and skills development to apply broader translation processes are needed to maximise the use of research at all stages., Competing Interests: Competing interests: EAL was employed by CRE-Stroke at the time data were collected and analysed., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: It is widely accepted that research can lead to improved health outcomes. However, translating research into meaningful impacts in peoples' lives requires actions that stretch well beyond those traditionally associated with knowledge creation. The research reported in this manuscript provides an international review of health research funders' efforts to encourage this process of research uptake, application and scaling, often referred to as knowledge translation., Methods: We conducted web-site review, document review and key informant interviews to investigate knowledge translation at 26 research funding agencies. The sample comprises the regions of Australia, Europe and North America, and a diverse range of funder types, including biomedical, clinical, multi-health domain, philanthropic, public and private organisations. The data builds on a 2008 study by the authors with the same international sample, which permitted longitudinal trend analysis., Results: Knowledge translation is an objective of growing significance for funders across each region studied. However, there is no clear international consensus or standard on how funders might support knowledge translation. We found that approaches and mechanisms vary across region and funder type. Strategically tailored funding opportunities (grants) are the most prevalent modality of support. The most common funder-driven strategy for knowledge translation within these grants is the linking of researchers to research users. Funders could not to provide empirical evidence to support the majority of the knowledge translation activities they encourage or undertake., Conclusions: Knowledge translation at a research funder relies on context. Accordingly, we suggest that the diversity of approaches uncovered in our research is fitting. We argue that evaluation of funding agency efforts to promote and/or support knowledge translation should be prioritised and actioned. It is paradoxical that funders' efforts to get evidence into practice are not themselves evidence based.

Background: The question of how to measure, assess and optimise the returns from investment in health and medical research (HMR) is a highly policy-relevant issue. Research Impact Assessment Frameworks (RIAFs) provide a conceptual measurement framework to assess the impact from HMR. The aims of this study were (1) to elicit the views of Medical Research Institutes (MRIs) regarding objectives, definitions, methods, barriers, potential scope and attitudes towards RIAFs, and (2) to investigate whether an assessment framework should represent a retrospective reflection of research impact or a prospective approach integrated into the research process. The wider objective was to inform the development of a draft RIAF for Australia's MRIs., Methods: Purposive sampling to derive a heterogeneous sample of Australian MRIs was used alongside semi-structured interviews with senior executives responsible for research translation or senior researchers affected by research impact initiatives. Thematic analysis of the interview transcriptions using the framework approach was then performed., Results: Interviews were conducted with senior representatives from 15 MRIs. Participants understood the need for greater research translation/impact, but varied in their comprehension and implementation of RIAFs. Common concerns included the time lag to the generation of societal impacts from basic or discovery science, and whether impact reflected a narrow commercialisation agenda. Broad support emerged for the use of metrics, case study and economic methods. Support was also provided for the rationale of both standardised and customised metrics. Engendering cultural change in the approach to research translation was acknowledged as both a barrier to greater impact and a critical objective for the assessment process. Participants perceived that the existing research environment incentivised the generation of academic publications and track records, and often conflicted with the generation of wider impacts. The potential to improve the speed of translation through prospective implementation of impact assessment was supported, albeit that the mechanism required development., Conclusion: The study found that the issues raised regarding research impact assessment are less about methods and metrics, and more about the research activities that the measurement of research translation and impact may or may not incentivise. Consequently, if impact assessment is to contribute to optimisation of the health gains from the public, corporate and philanthropic investment entrusted to the institutes, then further inquiry into how the assessment process may re-align research behaviour must be prioritised.

Objectives: To investigate researchers' perceptions about the factors that influenced the policy and practice impacts (or lack of impact) of one of their own funded intervention research studies., Design: Mixed method, cross-sectional study., Setting: Intervention research conducted in Australia and funded by Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council between 2003 and 2007., Participants: The chief investigators from 50 funded intervention research studies were interviewed to determine if their study had achieved policy and practice impacts, how and why these impacts had (or had not) occurred and the approach to dissemination they had employed., Results: We found that statistically significant intervention effects and publication of results influenced whether there were policy and practice impacts, along with factors related to the nature of the intervention itself, the researchers' experience and connections, their dissemination and translation efforts, and the postresearch context., Conclusions: This study indicates that sophisticated approaches to intervention development, dissemination actions and translational efforts are actually widespread among experienced researches, and can achieve policy and practice impacts. However, it was the links between the intervention results, further dissemination actions by researchers and a variety of postresearch contextual factors that ultimately determined whether a study had policy and practice impacts. Given the complicated interplay between the various factors, there appears to be no simple formula for determining which intervention studies should be funded in order to achieve optimal policy and practice impacts., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)