Can we track the impact of Australian mental health research?

Abstract

Objective: Arguments are being made to increase research and development funding for mental health research in Australia. Consequently, the methods used to measure the results of increased investment require review. This study aimed to describe the status of Australian mental health research and to propose potential methods for tracking changes in research output. Specifically, we describe the research output of nations, Australian states, Australian and New Zealand institutions and Australian and New Zealand researchers using citation rates. Method: Information on research output was sourced from two international databases (Institute for scientific information [ISI] Essential Science Indicators and ISI Web of Science) and the ISI list of Highly Cited Researchers. Results: In an international setting, Australia does not perform as well as other comparable countries such as New Zealand or Canada in terms of research output. Within Australia, the scientific performance of institutions apparently relates to the strength of some individual researchers or consolidated research groups. Highly cited papers are evident in the fields of syndrome definition, epidemiology and epidemiological methods, cognitive science and prognostic or longitudinal studies. Conclusions: Australian researchers need to consider the success of New Zealand and Canadian researchers, particularly given the relatively low investment in health and medical research in New Zealand. Although citation analyses are fraught with difficulties, they can be effectively complemented by other measures of responsiveness to clinical or population needs and community expectations and should be conducted regularly and independently to monitor the status of Australian mental health research.