Some studies suggest that ethnic minority people are healthier when they live in areas with a higher concentration of people from their own ethnic group, a so-called ethnic density effect. To date, no studies have examined the ethnic density effect among indigenous peoples, for whom connections to land, patterns of settlement, and drivers of residential location may differ from ethnic minority populations. The present study analysed the Māori sample from the 2006/07 New Zealand Health Survey to examine the association between increased Māori ethnic density, area deprivation, health, and experiences of racial discrimination. Results of multilevel regressions showed that an increase in Māori ethnic density was associated with decreased odds of reporting poor self-rated health, doctor-diagnosed common mental disorders, and experienced racial discrimination. These associations were strengthened after adjusting for area deprivation, which was consistently associated with increased odds of reporting poor health and reports of racial discrimination. Our findings show that whereas ethnic density is protective of the health and exposure to racial discrimination of Māori, this effect is concealed by the detrimental effect of area deprivation, signalling that the benefits of ethnic density must be interpreted within the current socio-political context. This includes the institutional structures and racist practices that have created existing health and socioeconomic inequities in the first place, and maintain the unequal distribution of concentrated poverty in areas of high Māori density. Addressing poverty and the inequitable distribution of socioeconomic resources by ethnicity and place in New Zealand is vital to improving health and reducing inequalities. Given the racialised nature of access to goods, services, and opportunities within New Zealand society, this also requires a strong commitment to eliminating racism. Such commitment and action will allow the benefits potentially flowing from strong communities to be fully realised.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 15 November 2024.
All research outputs
#1,468,543
of 32,921,030 outputs
Outputs from Social Science & Medicine
#1,395
of 13,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,628
of 238,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Social Science & Medicine
#11
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,921,030 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,656 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
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 238,307 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
