↓ Skip to main content

Indigenous health in Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific

Overview of attention for article published in The Lancet, May 2006
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
4 policy sources
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
333 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
Indigenous health in Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific
Published in
The Lancet, May 2006
DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68773-4
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

We survey Indigenous health issues across the Pacific with a case study approach that focuses on Australia, New Zealand, Hawai'i, and US Associated Micronesia. For each case study, we provide an overview of the Indigenous population, its colonial history, and current health and social outcomes. In the discussion that follows, we flag some of the key policy initiatives that have been developed to address Indigenous health disadvantage, albeit within the context of continuing debates about Indigenous rights and policy.

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 333 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 %
Australia 3 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Bolivia, Plurinational State of 1 <1%
Unknown 324 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 73 22%
Student > Master 57 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 12%
Student > Postgraduate 37 11%
Researcher 24 7%
Other 47 14%
Unknown 55 17%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 86 26%
Social Sciences 53 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 38 11%
Psychology 20 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 5%
Other 54 16%
Unknown 65 20%
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 14 January 2025.
All research outputs
#2,025,938
of 33,779,198 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#12,947
of 51,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,093
of 120,553 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#38
of 195 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,779,198 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 51,415 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 63.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 120,553 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 195 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.