A bibliometric analysis of research on Indigenous health in Australia, 1972-2008.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the growth patterns and citation volume of research publications referring to Indigenous health in Australia from 1972 to 2008 compared to seven selected health fields. METHODS: Web of Science was used to identify all publications (n=820) referring to the health of Indigenous Australians authored by Australian researchers, 1972 to 2008. Citations for each publication were also captured. Growth was compared with selected health fields as well as with overall Australian research publications. RESULTS: Research publications referring to Indigenous health, while remaining relatively small in number, grew at an average annual rate of 14.1%, compared with 8.2% across all fields of Australian research. The growth rate shown was equal second highest in our seven categories of health and medical research. However, Indigenous publications were cited significantly less than the Australian average. CONCLUSIONS: While there has been positive growth in publications referring to Indigenous health, the attention paid to this research through citations remains disappointingly low. IMPLICATIONS: Given that research concentration and impact can be an index of how seriously a nation considers a health problem, the low visibility of Australian research examining Indigenous health does not demonstrate a level of concern commensurate with the gravity of Indigenous health problems. Further investigation for the reasons for lower citations may identify potential intervention strategies.

Identifying trustworthy experts: how do policymakers find and assess public health researchers worth consulting or collaborating with?

This paper reports data from semi-structured interviews on how 26 Australian civil servants, ministers and ministerial advisors find and evaluate researchers with whom they wish to consult or collaborate. Policymakers valued researchers who had credibility across the three attributes seen as contributing to trustworthiness: competence (an exemplary academic reputation complemented by pragmatism, understanding of government processes, and effective collaboration and communication skills); integrity (independence, "authenticity", and faithful reporting of research); and benevolence (commitment to the policy reform agenda). The emphases given to these assessment criteria appeared to be shaped in part by policymakers' roles and the type and phase of policy development in which they were engaged. Policymakers are encouraged to reassess their methods for engaging researchers and to maximise information flow and support in these relationships. Researchers who wish to influence policy are advised to develop relationships across the policy community, but also to engage in other complementary strategies for promoting research-informed policy, including the strategic use of mass media.

Galvanizers, guides, champions, and shields: the many ways that policymakers use public health researchers.

CONTEXT: Public health researchers make a limited but important contribution to policy development. Some engage with policy directly through committees, advisory boards, advocacy coalitions, ministerial briefings, intervention design consultation, and research partnerships with government, as well as by championing research-informed policy in the media. Nevertheless, the research utilization literature has paid little attention to these diverse roles and the ways that policymakers use them. This article describes how policymakers use researchers in policymaking and examines how these activities relate to models of research utilization. It also explores the extent to which policymakers' accounts of using researchers concur with the experiences of "policy-engaged" public health researchers. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with thirty-two Australian civil servants, parliamentary ministers, and ministerial advisers identified as "research-engaged" by public health researchers. We used structured and inductive coding to generate categories that we then compared with some of the major research utilization models. FINDINGS: Policymakers were sophisticated and multifaceted users of researchers for purposes that we describe as Galvanizing Ideas, Clarification and Advice, Persuasion, and Defense. These categories overlapped but did not wholly fit with research utilization models. Despite the negative connotation, "being used" was reported as reciprocal and uncompromising, although researchers and policymakers were likely to categorize these uses differently. Policymakers countered views expressed by some researchers. That is, they sought robust dialogue and creative thinking rather than compliance, and they valued expert opinion when research was insufficient for decision making. The technical/political character of policy development shaped the ways in which researchers were used. CONCLUSIONS: Elucidating the diverse roles that public health researchers play in policymaking, and the multiple ways that policymakers use these roles, provides researchers and policymakers with a framework for negotiating and reflecting on activities that may advance the public health goals shared by both.

From "our world" to the "real world": Exploring the views and behaviour of policy-influential Australian public health researchers.

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.

Spirituality and health: an exploratory study of hospital patients' perspectives.

The relationship between spirituality/religion and health is receiving increasing academic interest, but few studies have explored the experience of Australians. This paper presents data from an exploratory survey of patients and families in a public teaching hospital in Sydney. The findings show that the majority of hospital service users: