Funding for rural health research from the Australian Research Council: a missed opportunity?
OBJECTIVE
To determine the number of projects, and level of funding, for rural health research from the Australian Research Council (ARC).


METHODS
Analyses of ARC searchable datasets of completed, and new and ongoing projects from 2001 to 2008.


METHODS
Number of rural health research projects as a proportion of total funding; level of funding for rural health research projects as a proportion of total funding.


RESULTS
Only 46 of 6498 ARC completed projects were classified as rural health research projects. This represents 0.7% of the total number of projects, and 0.39% of the total funding allocated. Only 25 of 4659 ARC new and ongoing projects were classified as rural health research projects. This represents 0.54% of the total number of projects, and 0.27% of the total funding allocated. None of the 832 completed fellowships were classified as rural health. Only five (0.52%) of the 953 new and ongoing fellowships were classified as rural health.


CONCLUSIONS
The level of under-funding for rural health research could be partially addressed by directing applications towards the ARC, in addition to the National Health and Medical Research Council. With a few exceptions, rural health researchers are not yet competitive in the national funding arena.
McDonald
John
J
Centre for Health Research and Practice, School of Behavioural and Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Ballarat, Ballarat, Victoria, Australia. mcdonald@ballarat.edu.au
D001315:Australia; D005380:Financing, Government; D006077:Government Agencies; D006302:Health Services Research / Q000191:economics* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D012423:Rural Health