↓ Skip to main content

‘Give us the full story’: Overcoming the challenges to achieving informed choice about fetal anomaly screening in Australian Aboriginal communities

Overview of attention for article published in Social Science & Medicine, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 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.
Title
‘Give us the full story’: Overcoming the challenges to achieving informed choice about fetal anomaly screening in Australian Aboriginal communities
Published in
Social Science & Medicine, December 2012
DOI 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.10.031
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kayli Wild, Elaine Lawurrpa Maypilama, Sue Kildea, Jacqueline Boyle, Lesley Barclay, Alice Rumbold

Abstract

This cross-cultural qualitative study examined the ethical, language and cultural complexities around offering fetal anomaly screening in Australian Aboriginal communities. There were five study sites across the Northern Territory (NT), including urban and remote Aboriginal communities. In-depth interviews were conducted between October 2009 and August 2010, and included 35 interviews with 59 health providers and 33 interviews with 62 Aboriginal women. The findings show that while many providers espoused the importance of achieving equity in access to fetal anomaly screening, their actions were inconsistent with this ideal. Providers reported they often modified their practice depending on the characteristics of their client, including their English skills, the perception of the woman's interest in the tests and assumptions based on their risk profile and cultural background. Health providers were unsure whether it was better to tailor information to the specific needs of their client or to provide the same level of information to all clients. Very few Aboriginal women were aware of fetal anomaly screening. The research revealed they did want to be offered screening and wanted the 'full story' about all aspects of the tests. The communication processes advocated by Aboriginal women to improve understanding about screening included community discussions led by elders and educators. These processes promote culturally defined ways of sharing information, rather than the individualised, biomedical approaches to information-giving in the clinical setting. A different and arguably more ethical approach to introducing fetal anomaly screening would be to initiate dialogue with appropriate groups of women in the community, particularly young women, build relationships and utilise Aboriginal health workers. This could accommodate individual choice and broader cultural values and allow women to discuss the moral and philosophical debates surrounding fetal anomaly screening prior to the clinical encounter and within their own cultural space.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 106 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 16%
Researcher 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 24 22%
Unknown 17 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 17%
Social Sciences 17 16%
Psychology 6 6%
Arts and Humanities 6 6%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 18 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 February 2013.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Social Science & Medicine
#10,431
of 11,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,390
of 288,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Social Science & Medicine
#83
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.8. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 288,426 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.