State-based output in Australian mental health research

Abstract

State and territory support for mental health research may have important implications for research output.

European mental health research resources: Picture and recommendations of the ROAMER project

“…Papers showed the positive impact of involving users on MHR success, ethics and funding, (Ghisoni et al, 2017, Ennis and Wykes, 2013, DuBois et al, 2011, Griffiths et al, 2004, Headey et al, 2006, Links et al, 2016, and discuss combining symptoms scales for collaborating research (Lyne et al, 2012). Other papers covered specific aspects of MHR funding such as correlates of research output (Batterham et al, 2014), conflicts of interests in MHR (Henderson et al, 2003), media coverage of MHR and its impacts on funding (Lewison et al, 2012), definition of "policy impact of research" in MHR (Alla et al, 2017), presented and discussed of the RDoC (Østergaard et al, 2014) or presented the NEURON network of European funding agencies (Dorlöchter and Lichtenberg, 2005). Papers discussed the formal and informal criteria of grants reviewers in mental health research (Cleary et al, 2006, Fischer andGeorge, 2010).…”

Early intervention, youth mental health: the value of translational research for reform and investment in mental health

“…Finally, turning to the crucial issue of mental health research, we already know that even though mental health is proportionately underfunded from both government and private sources relative to the other major disease categories, Australia's mental health researchers perform more strongly on international benchmarks than their colleagues in many other branches of medical research. 13 Batterham et al's 14 paper on mental health research activity in Australia provides an interesting snapshot on recent performance and efficiency of researchers across the different States and Territories, though it only draws on data from one year (2008) some 6 years ago, and fails to capture the translational impact of grant and publication success. However, they do suggest that creating capacity and critical mass around particular foci or priority domains would enhance the yield, and furthermore, the translational influence of research.…”