↓ Skip to main content

“It puts a human face on the researched” – A qualitative evaluation of an Indigenous health research governance model

Overview of attention for article published in Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
“It puts a human face on the researched” – A qualitative evaluation of an Indigenous health research governance model
Published in
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, August 2015
DOI 10.1111/1753-6405.12422
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chelsea Bond, Wendy Foley, Deborah Askew

Abstract

To describe the Inala Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Jury for Health Research, and evaluate its usefulness as a model of Indigenous research governance within an urban Indigenous primary health care service from the perspectives of jury members and researchers. Informed by a phenomenological approach and using narrative inquiry, a focus group was conducted with jury members and key informant interviews were undertaken with researchers who had presented to the Community Jury in its first year of operation. The jury was a site of identity work for researchers and jury members, providing an opportunity to observe and affirm community cultural protocols. Although researchers and jury members had differing levels of research literacy, the jury processes enabled respectful communication and relationships to form, which positively influenced research practice, community aspirations and clinical care. The jury processes facilitated transformative research practice among researchers and resulted in transference of power from researchers to the jury members, to the mutual benefit of both. Ethical Indigenous health research practice requires an engagement with Indigenous peoples and knowledge at the research governance level, not simply as subjects or objects of research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 59 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 22%
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Librarian 4 7%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 15 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 13 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 12%
Arts and Humanities 4 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 19 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 25 March 2021.
All research outputs
#7,156,351
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
#972
of 1,911 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,681
of 275,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
#23
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,911 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.3. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 275,303 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.