↓ Skip to main content

Measuring research impact: a large cancer research funding programme in Australia

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

21 tweeters
1 Google+ user


3 Dimensions

Readers on

26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Measuring research impact: a large cancer research funding programme in Australia
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12961-018-0311-3
Pubmed ID

Jacqueline A. Bowden, Nicole Sargent, Steve Wesselingh, Lincoln Size, Claire Donovan, Caroline L. Miller


Measuring research impact is of critical interest to philanthropic and government funding agencies interested in ensuring that the research they fund is both scientifically excellent and has meaningful impact into health and other outcomes. The Beat Cancer Project (BCP) is a AUD $34 m cancer research funding scheme that commenced in 2011. It was initiated by an Australian charity (Cancer Council SA), and supported by the South Australian Government and the state's major universities. This study applied Buxton and Hanney's Payback Framework to assess research impact generated from the BCP after 3 years of funding. Data sources were an audit of peer-reviewed publications from January 2011 to September 2014 from Web of Knowledge and a self-report survey of investigators awarded BCP research funding during its first 3 years of implementation (2011-2013). Of the 104 surveys, 92 (88%) were completed. The BCP performed well across all five categories of the Payback Framework. In terms of knowledge production, 1257 peer-reviewed publications were generated and the mean impact factor of publishing journals increased annually. There were many benefits to future research with 21 respondents (23%) reporting career advancement, and 110 higher degrees obtained or expected (including 84 PhDs). Overall, 52% of funded projects generated tools for future research. The funded research attracted substantial further income yielding a very high rate of leverage. For every AUD $1 that the cancer charity invested, the BCP gained an additional AUD $6.06. Five projects (5%) had informed policy and 5 (5%) informed product development, with an additional 31 (34%) and 35 (38%) projects, respectively, anticipating doing so. In terms of health and sector and broader economic benefits, 8 (9%) projects had influenced practice or behaviour of health staff and 32 (34%) would reportedly to do so in the future. Research impact was a priority of charity and government funders and led to a deliberate funding strategy. Emphasising research impact while maintaining rigorous, competitive processes can achieve the joint objectives of excellence in research, yielding good research impact and a high rate of leverage for philanthropic and public investment, as indicated by these early results.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 27%
Researcher 5 19%
Unspecified 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Other 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 7 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 15%
Social Sciences 4 15%
Unspecified 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 6 23%
Unknown 7 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 July 2020.
All research outputs
of 15,659,900 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
of 872 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 279,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,659,900 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 872 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,080 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them