ArticleHealth research policy and systems2026
Impact assessment of a national research collaboration improving health outcomes for working-age Australians with disability.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite growing recognition of the need for cross-disciplinary research collaborations to tackle complex issues, the impact of such collaborations is rarely documented. This study applied an impact framework to assess the impact of a cross-disciplinary disability research collaboration, the Centre of Research Excellence in Disability and Health (CRE-DH) (2016-2023). We report on the utility of the impact framework for this task and propose a set of actions to ensure the effectiveness of impact evaluations for other cross-disciplinary collaborations.
methodsWe retrospectively applied the Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational health research (FAIT) to the CRE-DH, which included a modified payback framework, an economic analysis and a narrative account of the impact generated by the collaboration. The impact assessment covered the period 2016-2024. Data were gathered from project records, reports and publications and secondary analysis of interviews conducted with external and internal stakeholders. Data were mapped to five impact domains: knowledge advancement, capacity strengthening, policy contribution, economic impact and community benefit.
resultsThe $5.4 million (2024 AUD) initially invested in the CRE-DH delivered an additional investment of $39.9 million (2024 AUD) (sensitivity analysis $26.5-53.2 million) in leveraged grants, consultancies and fellowships. Collectively, CRE-DH members produced 148 publications, 4 books, 15 book chapters, 48 reports, 17 fact sheets and 132 media articles. Publications were mentioned in the media more than 3400 times and cited in 45 policy documents. The CRE-DH funded and developed 9 early career disability researchers, and held 11 external events to strengthen capacity in disability research with policymakers and disability organizations. A total of 29 policy submissions were made, with those focussing on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its disproportionate impact on people with disability having particular influence on government policy.
conclusionsApplying FAIT retrospectively to assess a cross-disciplinary research collaboration's impact allowed us to examine multiple benefit domains. The CRE-DH demonstrated impact in advancing knowledge, strengthening capacity, influencing policy and generating economic benefits; evidence on quantifiable community benefit is not yet available. However, our assessment was limited by insufficient data collection on some critical issues, such as disability representation. As a result, we propose several recommendations for applying FAIT in future research collaborations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.