↓ Skip to main content

Follow‐up of Indigenous‐specific health assessments ‐ a socioecological analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Journal of Australia, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Follow‐up of Indigenous‐specific health assessments ‐ a socioecological analysis
Published in
Medical Journal of Australia, June 2014
DOI 10.5694/mja13.00256
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jodie Bailie, Gill H Schierhout, Margaret A Kelaher, Alison F Laycock, Nikki A Percival, Lynette R O'Donoghue, Tracy L McNeair, Amal Chakraborty, Barbara D Beacham, Ross S Bailie

Abstract

To describe patterns of uptake of Indigenous-specific health assessments and associated follow-up items, and examine the barriers and enablers to delivery and billing of follow-up over the first 3 years of implementation of the Indigenous Chronic Disease Package (ICDP). We used a socioecological approach to analyse data derived from the Sentinel Sites Evaluation of the ICDP - with data from 24 sites across Australia. Administrative data (1 May 2009 to 30 May 2012) and program data (1 March 2010 to 30 May 2012) were provided by the Department of Health. Data on barriers and enablers to follow-up of health assessments were obtained from community focus groups, in-depth interviews and discussions with key informants (1 November 2010 to 30 December 2012). Monthly number of Medicare Benefits Schedule items claimed for Indigenous-specific health services and follow-up; qualitative data on enablers and barriers categorised according to patient, patient-health service relationship, health service or organisation, community and policy environment levels or influence. There was an increase in the uptake of health assessments, but relatively limited delivery of follow-up care and billing for Indigenous-specific follow-up items. Follow-up was constrained by factors that operated at various levels: patient, interpersonal, health service, community and policy. Constraints included practitioners' lack of awareness of item numbers, staffing, poor state of clinical information systems, billing against non-Indigenous-specific items or more general follow-up items, emphasis on health assessments with less attention to requirements for follow-up, limited capacity to arrange and facilitate follow-up, and communication and transport challenges for patients. Work is required across various levels of the system to address barriers to follow-up care. Enhancing follow-up care is vital to achieving health benefits from the large financial and human resource investment in health assessments.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 14 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Social Sciences 5 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Engineering 3 6%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 15 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 December 2020.
All research outputs
#8,537,346
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Medical Journal of Australia
#2,808
of 5,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,875
of 229,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Journal of Australia
#37
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,725 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 229,454 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.