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

Abstract

ABSTRACT Issue Addressed This study assesses how the concept of (health) research impact has been operationalised in National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Impact Case Studies, and if and how lived experience research priorities have been considered, to ascertain implications for Australian health and medical research. Methods A conceptual content analysis was conducted on the 45 NHMRC Impact Case Study impact statements published on the NHMRC website up to 31 March 2024. Coding was undertaken by an interdisciplinary team with reference to the NHMRC, Canadian Academy of Health Sciences, and United Kingdom Research Excellence Framework definitions of research impact. Both explicit and implicit references to the impact indicators—Knowledge, Health, Economy, and Society (all frameworks), and Culture and Environment (non‐NHMRC frameworks)—were included. Research on mental health was a particular focus. Results The Case Studies spanned 6 to 66 years from initial NHMRC funding, with two focused explicitly on mental health. Impact statements referred, explicitly or implicitly, to at least two NHMRC impact indicators, predominantly Knowledge and Health, with most covering all four. The statements covered the non‐NHMRC definitions Culture and Environment to varying degrees. References to lived experience or consumer priorities, and how their involvement contributes to impact, were limited. Conclusions The NHMRC logic model adopts a comparatively narrow conceptualisation of research impact, containing one‐third fewer indicators than the Canadian and United Kingdom frameworks. So What? A holistic approach to assessing impact is proposed to enhance the NHMRC's ability to address Australia's complex health challenges equitably and foster convergence between medical and social research paradigms.