↓ Skip to main content

Food, food choice and nutrition promotion in a remote Australian Aboriginal community

Overview of attention for article published in Australian Journal of Primary Health, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 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
Food, food choice and nutrition promotion in a remote Australian Aboriginal community
Published in
Australian Journal of Primary Health, January 2014
DOI 10.1071/py14033
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan L. Colles, Elaine Maypilama, Julie Brimblecombe

Abstract

Contemporary diets of Aboriginal people living in remote Australia are characterised by processed foods high in fat and sugar. Within the 'new' food system, evidence suggests many Aboriginal people understand food in their own terms but lack access to consumer information about store-purchased foods, and parents feel inadequate as role models. In a remote Australian Aboriginal community, purposive sampling identified adults who participated in semistructured interviews guided by food-based themes relating to the contemporary food system, parental guidance of children's food choice and channels through which people learn. Interpretive content analysis was used to identify salient themes. In discussions, people identified more closely with dietary qualities or patterns than nutrients, and valued a balanced, fresh diet that made them feel 'light'. People possessed basic knowledge of 'good' store foods, and wanted to increase familiarity and experience with foods in packets and cans through practical and social skills, especially cooking. Education about contemporary foods was obtained from key family role models and outside the home through community-based organisations, including school, rather than pamphlets and flip charts. Freedom of choice was a deeply held value; carers who challenged children's autonomy used strategic distraction, or sought healthier alternatives that did not wholly deny the child. Culturally safe approaches to information sharing and capacity building that contribute to the health and wellbeing of communities requires collaboration and shared responsibility between policy makers, primary healthcare agencies, wider community-based organisations and families.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 3 2%
Finland 1 <1%
Unknown 123 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 50 39%
Student > Master 17 13%
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 7%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 15 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 13%
Social Sciences 13 10%
Psychology 9 7%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 20 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 16 March 2016.
All research outputs
#4,666,639
of 17,358,590 outputs
Outputs from Australian Journal of Primary Health
#156
of 558 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,928
of 200,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Australian Journal of Primary Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,358,590 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 558 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 200,497 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them