Research productivity and impact of rehabilitation science faculty across Canada: An observational study of publicly available and survey data

Introduction This study characterized research productivity and impact of rehabilitation science (Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Communication Sciences and Disorders) faculty across Canada. Methods Mixed-method cross-sectional design, using publicly available data and online surveys. Faculty were identified from academic unit websites. Bibliometric indices were obtained using Google Scholar and grant funding from Tri-Council databases. Verification protocols checked data validity. Heads of academic units provided research environment data; faculty reported research impact. Descriptive statistics summarized research environment, bibliometric and grant funding indices. Kruskal-Wallis tests compared indices by appointment title. Regression analyses examined associations with h-index and funding; mixed-effects models explored academic unit clustering. Inductive content analysis identified self-described research impact. Results Across 41 academic units, 685 full-time faculty were identified. Most units reported research supports, including administrative grant support (pre-award = 97%, post-award = 69%) and research facility access (97%). Median (IQR) h-index was: Full Professors: 32 (21–42), Associate Professors: 19 (14–25), Assistant Professors: 9 (6–16), Full Professors, Teaching: 4 (1–12), Associate Professors, Teaching: 3 (2–7), Assistant Professors, Teaching: 2 (0–5), Instructors: 1 (0–3). Tri-Council funding was concentrated among research-focused appointments and senior ranks. h-index was positively associated with publication count (β = 0.62, p < 0.001) and appointment title ( p < 0.001) but not discipline ( p = 0.66) or grant funding ( p = 0.32). h-index variability attributable to academic units was 18.6% ( p = 0.003), though research environment characteristics were not significant. Tri-Council funding was positively associated with publication count (β = 1.77, p < 0.001) and appointment title ( p = 0.01) but not discipline ( p = 0.47) or h-index ( p = 0.32), with minimal between-unit variability ( p = 0.39). Faculty described research impact beyond traditional scholarly metrics, including clinical practice, research and practice directions, education, capacity building, knowledge mobilization and engagement. Discussion This study provides a contemporary national characterization of research productivity and impact among rehabilitation science faculty in Canada. Findings support using bibliometric and grant funding indices as a component of research performance evaluations, emphasizing the importance of contextual interpretation and broadly conceptualizing research impact.