Why Global Health Needs a Common Language for Impact
By Luchuo Engelbert Bain , MD, PhD, FAAS
Toward shared meaning among funders, researchers, and policymakers
Impact in global health remains fragmented because funders, researchers, and evaluators often operate with different lenses and expectations. Without a shared meaning, resources are misaligned and comparisons across studies become arbitrary. A common framework would allow funders and researchers to prioritize what truly makes sense, enable evaluators to assess impact against the original research intent, and support fair comparison across contexts. I therefore argue for an Impact in Global Health Research Scale to create coherence, clarity, and shared accountability across stakeholders.
Impact is one of the most used—and least understood—word in global health
“Impact” has become one of the most powerful buzzwords in global health. Everyone demands it, everyone claims it, yet few agree on what it actually means. Funders, researchers, policymakers, and evaluators often operate with different—and sometimes conflicting—definitions. Before debating measurement or scale, we need to ask a more basic question:what do we mean by impact in the first place?
There is broad consensus that research should have the potential to create impact, yet little agreement on how impact should be defined or rewarded. Impact is often reduced to proxy indicators such as publication counts, journal impact factors, or citation numbers. These may reflect academic productivity, but they rarely capture real-world change in health outcomes, systems, or policies. Valuable research is frequently overlooked because it is published outside indexed journals, in non-English languages, or embedded directly in policy and practice rather than academic outlets.
The evidence–action gap: A widely cited estimate suggests it takes around 17 years for research evidence to influence policy or practice. In the context of pandemics, climate change, and rapidly evolving health threats, this delay is no longer acceptable. Research that arrives too late fails the people and systems it was meant to serve. This gap is not accidental—it is the result of how research incentives, funding structures, and definitions of success are designed.
Why a shared language matters
A common language for impact would not eliminate debate, but it would improve alignment. Funders could allocate resources more strategically, researchers could design studies with clearer pathways to use, and policymakers could better interpret and apply evidence. It would also help distinguish between internal monitoring and evaluation and broader societal impact—two related but distinct concepts that are often conflated.
Impact as design, not afterthought
Impact should not be something assessed only at the end of a project. It needs to be integrated into research design from the outset: who the research is for, how it will be used, what decisions it aims to inform, and over what timeframe. High-quality research, scalable research, and impactful research must be deliberately linked rather than treated as competing goals.
Toward shared understanding
Rethinking impact is not merely a technical exercise. It is a strategic and ethical imperative. Without shared understanding, global health risks continuing to reward activity over outcomes. With a common language for impact, evidence stands a far better chance of translating into timely, meaningful, and equitable improvements in health.
A shared language of impact is not about enforcing uniformity, but about enabling meaningful dialogue and alignment. An Impact in Global Health Research Scale would help funders, researchers, policymakers, and evaluators communicate using common reference points—linking research questions, design, outcomes, and use. By grounding evaluation in what research set out to achieve, such a scale can reduce waste, improve learning, and ensure scarce resources translate into timely, measurable, and ethical health gains across sectors.
