↓ Skip to main content

Capacity building in indigenous men's groups and sheds across Australia

Overview of attention for article published in Health Promotion International, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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.
Title
Capacity building in indigenous men's groups and sheds across Australia
Published in
Health Promotion International, January 2014
DOI 10.1093/heapro/dat092
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amie Southcombe, Jillian Cavanagh, Timothy Bartram

Abstract

This article presents an investigation into capacity building, at the community level, in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Men's Groups and Sheds. As safe men's spaces, Men's Groups and Sheds represent an ever-growing social, and health and well-being community service across Australia. The study is qualitative and employs 'yarning circles' (focus groups), semi-structured interviews and observations to gather data from 15 Groups/Sheds involving 45 men from urban, regional and remote communities. We found that capacity building is primarily about securing relationships between Group Leaders/Shed Co-ordinators and Government services. Capacity building establishes links to services such as Centrelink, Medicare, Department of Housing, Probation and Control, and positive outcomes such as Indigenous men securing housing and Centrelink payments. Capacity building results in better health outcomes and, educates and empowers men to improve their social, cultural, emotional and economic well-being. It helps men to better connect with family and community. The current research paves the way for countries worldwide to explore the conceptual and empirical approach of capacity building applicable to other Indigenous [and non-Indigenous] Men's Groups/Sheds. We recommend feasibilities studies, on approaches to capacity building in Indigenous Groups/Sheds, be carried out within urban, regional and remote regions across the country.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 40 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 27%
Researcher 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 5%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 3 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 13 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 20%
Psychology 5 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 4 10%

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 07 September 2015.
All research outputs
#7,518,287
of 12,025,923 outputs
Outputs from Health Promotion International
#915
of 1,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,628
of 211,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Promotion International
#9
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,025,923 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,106 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 211,731 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.