Objective: To describe the research publication outputs from intervention research funded by Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).
Design and setting: Analysis of descriptive data and data on publication outputs collected between 23 July 2012 and 10 December 2013 relating to health intervention research project grants funded between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2007.
Main outcome measures: Stages of development of intervention studies (efficacy, effectiveness, replication, adaptation or dissemination of intervention); types of interventions studied; publication output per NHMRC grant; and whether interventions produced statistically significant changes in primary outcome variables.
Results: Most of the identified studies tested intervention efficacy or effectiveness in clinical or community settings, with few testing the later stages of intervention development, such as replication, adaptation or dissemination. Studies focused largely on chronic disease treatment and management, and encompassed various medical and allied health disciplines. Equal numbers of studies had interventions that produced statistically significant results on primary outcomes, (27) and those that did not (27). The mean number of total published articles per grant was 3.3, with 2.0 articles per grant focusing on results, and the remainder covering descriptive, exploratory or methodological aspects of intervention research.
Conclusions: Our study provides a benchmark for the publication outputs of NHMRC-funded health intervention research in Australia. Research productivity is particularly important for intervention research, where findings are likely to have more immediate and direct applicability to health policy and practice. Tracking research outputs in this way provides information on whether current research investment patterns match the need for evidence about health care interventions.
- 1. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet 2014; 383: 156-165.
- 2. Quantifying the social impact of research and medical journals [editorial]. Lancet 2014; 384: 557.
- 3. Wells R, Whitworth JA. Assessing outcomes of health and medical research: do we measure what counts or count what we can measure? Aust New Zealand Health Policy 2007; 4: 14.
- 4. Wooding S, Hanney SR, Pollitt A, et al. Understanding factors associated with the translation of cardiovascular research: a multinational case study approach. Implement Sci 2014; 9: 47.
- 5. Donovan C, Butler L, Butt AJ, et al. Evaluation of the impact of National Breast Cancer Foundation-funded research. Med J Aust 2014; 200: 214-218. <MJA full text>
- 6. Ionnidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct and analysis. Lancet 2014; 383: 166-175.
- 7. Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, et al. Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci 2012; 7: 50.
- 8. Hawe P, Potvin L. What is population health intervention research? Can J Public Health 2009; 100(1): Suppl I8-I14.
- 9. Milat AJ, Bauman AE, Redman S, Curac N. Public health research outputs from efficacy to dissemination: a bibliometric analysis. BMC Public Health 2011; 11: 934.
- 10. Sanson-Fisher RW, Campbell EM, Htun AT, et al. We are what we do: research outputs of public health. Am J Prev Med 2008; 35: 380-385.
- 11. Reynolds J, DiLiberto D, Mangham-Jefferies L, et al. The practice of ‘doing’ evaluation: lessons learned from nine complex intervention trials in action. Implement Sci 2014; 9: 75.
- 12. Bauman A, Nutbeam D. Evaluation in a nutshell: a practical guide to the evaluation of health promotion programs. 2nd ed. Sydney: McGraw-Hill, 2013.
- 13. Cohen G, Schroeder J, Newson R, et al. Does health intervention research have real world policy and practice impacts: testing a new impact assessment tool. Health Res Policy Syst 2015; 13: 3.
- 14. Hawe P, Di Ruggiero E, Cohen E. Frequently asked questions about population health intervention research. Can J Public Health 2012; 103: e468-e471.
- 15. Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, et al. Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technol Assess 2010; 14: iii, ix-xi, 1-193.
- 16. Schapper CC, Dwyer T, Tregear GW, et al. Research performance evaluation: the experience of an independent medical research institute. Aust Health Rev 2012; 36: 218-223.
- 17. Milat AJ, Laws R, King L, et al. Policy and practice impacts of applied research: a case study analysis of the New South Wales Health Promotion Demonstration Research Grants Scheme 2000-2006. Health Res Policy Syst 2013; 11: 5.
- 18. Reed RL, Kalucy EC, Jackson-Bowers E, McIntyre E. What research impacts do Australian primary health care researchers expect and achieve? Health Res Policy Syst 2011; 9: 40.
- 19. Nutbeam D. Report of the Review of Public Health Research Funding in Australia. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council, 2008.
- 20. Haynes AS, Gillespie JA, Derrick GE, et al. Galvanizers, guides, champions, and shields: the many ways that policymakers use public health researchers. Milbank Q 2011; 89: 564-598.
Publication of your online response is subject to the Medical Journal of Australia's editorial discretion. You will be notified by email within five working days should your response be accepted.