↓ Skip to main content

Dissonant roles: The experience of Māori in cancer care

Overview of attention for article published in Social Science & Medicine, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
Dissonant roles: The experience of Māori in cancer care
Published in
Social Science & Medicine, June 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.06.008
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Indigenous peoples have poorer health outcomes than their non-indigenous counterparts and this applies to cancer outcomes for Māori in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Differential access to and quality of healthcare contributes to poorer survival rates for Māori. This research provides insight into some of the mechanisms that hinder and facilitate care access. Thirty four people who had undergone cancer treatment (19 Māori and 15 non-Māori) were interviewed by two Māori researchers. The analysis of the interview transcripts was informed by membership categorization analysis. This form of analysis attends to the categories that are used and the activities and characteristics associated with those categories. From this analysis it is argued that the classical patient role, or sick role, inadequately captures the kind of role that some Māori take in relation to their healthcare. Māori can also have culturally specific family (whānau) influences and a greater draw towards alternative approaches to healthcare. Dissonant roles contribute to a different experience for Māori. A better understanding of the categories and roles that are relevant to those who have cancer provides opportunities to attenuate the monocultural impacts of healthcare.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 86 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 %
Peru 1 1%
Unknown 85 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Master 8 9%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 30 35%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 15%
Psychology 6 7%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 30 35%
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 18 December 2023.
All research outputs
#20,761,556
of 25,507,011 outputs
Outputs from Social Science & Medicine
#11,134
of 11,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,728
of 280,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Social Science & Medicine
#90
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,507,011 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,919 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 280,225 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.