↓ Skip to main content

Assessing service use for mental health by Indigenous populations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States of America: a rapid review of population surveys

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Assessing service use for mental health by Indigenous populations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States of America: a rapid review of population surveys
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12961-017-0233-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cecily McIntyre, Meredith G. Harris, Amanda J. Baxter, Stuart Leske, Sandra Diminic, Joseph P. Gone, Ernest Hunter, Harvey Whiteford

Abstract

Indigenous people in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States of America experience disproportionately poor mental health compared to their non-Indigenous counterparts. To optimally allocate resources, health planners require information about the services Indigenous people use for mental health, their unmet treatment needs and the barriers to care. We reviewed population surveys of Indigenous people to determine whether the information needed to guide service development is being collected. We sought national- or state-level epidemiological surveys of Indigenous populations conducted in each of the four selected countries since 1990 that asked about service use for mental health. Surveys were identified from literature reviews and web searches. We developed a framework for categorising the content of each survey. Using this framework, we compared the service use content of the surveys of Indigenous people to each other and to general population mental health surveys. We focused on identifying gaps in information coverage and topics that may require Indigenous-specific questions or response options. Nine surveys met our inclusion criteria. More than half of these included questions about health professionals consulted, barriers to care, perceived need for care, medications taken, number, duration, location and payment of health professional visits or use of support services or self-management. Less than half included questions about interventions received, hospital admissions or treatment dropout. Indigenous-specific content was most common in questions regarding use of support services or self-management, types of health professionals consulted, barriers to care and interventions received. Epidemiological surveys measuring service use for mental health among Indigenous populations have been less comprehensive and less standardised than surveys of the general population, despite having assessed similar content. To better understand the gaps in mental health service systems for Indigenous people, systematically-collected subjective and objective indicators of the quality of care being delivered are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 21%
Student > Master 11 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 12%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 15 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 22%
Psychology 12 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 16%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 18 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 31 January 2019.
All research outputs
#7,195,960
of 14,218,657 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#614
of 779 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,825
of 268,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,218,657 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 779 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 268,569 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.