What do sharing power, building trust, improving health outcomes, and empowering communities have in common? They’re all types of impact from remote health research – contributions that research can make to the “real” world. For those working in remote health, these are not abstract ideals — they are real impacts that can make a big difference in people’s lives.
Over seventy participants from across Australia came together at a pre-symposium research impact workshop during the 10th Rural and Remote Health Scientific Symposium held in Mparntwe (Alice Springs) in October 2025. Convened by the Mparntwe-based Remote Health Systems and Climate Change Centre (RHC3) in Menzies School of Health Research, participants discussed what research impact means in a remote context, how to measure it, and opportunities to further strengthen research impacts. Participants heard from RHC3 researchers about conducting place-based and culturally appropriate health research in partnership with remote Aboriginal communities and local service providers in Central Australia – drawing on the team’s broad research program on remote health systems and service delivery, workforce, and climate change.
The National Health and Medical Research Council defines research impact as “the verifiable outcomes that research makes to knowledge, health, the economy and/or society.” We know that research structures and processes need to be adapted to context (e.g. remote versus urban, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander versus non-Indigenous communities). But do research outcomes and effects also vary according to context, and what are the implications for creating incentives to optimise research impact and for measuring impact?
Discussions among workshop participants revealed different types of impact that showcase the breadth of relevant impacts and challenged the notion that impacts occur linearly. While knowledge, health, environmental, and socioeconomic impacts were recognised as critical, so too were impacts that can be loosely characterised as relational enablers along an impact pathway – such as community voice, engaging with Elders, sustaining knowledge in the community, and true partnerships that share power. Importantly, in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, these enablers are also valued impacts in themselves. When asked to consider “what does research impact mean to you?”, workshop participants highlighted the importance of relational factors:
“[Impactful research is] aligned with community and stakeholder priorities and supports community leadership.”
“[Impact is] respecting Aboriginal culture and IP and using Aboriginal methodologies.”
The workshop considered the many frameworks and approaches to measuring impact – most of which describe impact domains mapped along a timeframe or logic model. In small groups, participants selected an impact framework from the literature and applied it to a remote research scenario. Learnings from this exercise included that the complexity of health systems and research means that the choice of measurement framework, tool, or approach would ideally be informed by the context and tailored to research objectives. Having a structured way to think about impact can also help researchers, community, industry partners and funders to make sense of how health systems work in practice.
Participants’ ideas give guidance for the future development of the field. In remote Australia, for example, key research impacts are likely to include fostering strong relationships, shared leadership, and mutual respect. Taking the time to think about desired impacts such as these at the start of a project can help to guide researchers’ (and funders’) decisions about timeframes, budgets, and partnerships. As well, making impact clear at the start can help to improve the accountability of research – and of public funding – to the community. For example, it can prompt questions such as – whose idea was it to do this research? Who is driving the research? What knowledge already exists in the community?
Understanding – and maybe even challenging – the answers to these questions from the inception of a research project could help research to “get real”: to drive change and make a difference to peoples’ lives in remote Australia.
CRCNA project: Attracting and retaining a health workforce in rural and remote northern Australia
Issue: 93 https://ruralhealth.org.au/partyline/getting-real-in-remote-health-research/
