↓ Skip to main content

Measuring cancer in indigenous populations

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Epidemiology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
17 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
79 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.
Article details
Title
Measuring cancer in indigenous populations
Published in
Annals of Epidemiology, February 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.annepidem.2018.02.005
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

It is estimated that there are 370 million indigenous peoples in 90 countries globally. Indigenous peoples generally face substantial disadvantage and poorer health status compared with nonindigenous peoples. Population-level cancer surveillance provides data to set priorities, inform policies, and monitor progress over time. Measuring the cancer burden of vulnerable subpopulations, particularly indigenous peoples, is problematic. There are a number of practical and methodological issues potentially resulting in substantial underestimation of cancer incidence and mortality rates, and biased survival rates, among indigenous peoples. This, in turn, may result in a deprioritization of cancer-related programs and policies among these populations. This commentary describes key issues relating to cancer surveillance among indigenous populations including 1) suboptimal identification of indigenous populations, 2) numerator-denominator bias, 3) problems with data linkage in survival analysis, and 4) statistical analytic considerations. We suggest solutions that can be implemented to strengthen the visibility of indigenous peoples around the world. These include acknowledgment of the central importance of full engagement of indigenous peoples with all data-related processes, encouraging the use of indigenous identifiers in national and regional data sets and mitigation and/or careful assessment of biases inherent in cancer surveillance methods for indigenous peoples.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 29 37%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Engineering 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 34 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 06 March 2023.
All research outputs
#2,094,078
of 33,738,238 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Epidemiology
#267
of 2,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,542
of 515,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Epidemiology
#5
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,738,238 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,418 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. 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 515,622 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.