↓ Skip to main content

Supporting aboriginal knowledge and practice in health care: lessons from a qualitative evaluation of the strong women, strong babies, strong culture program

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
160 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
Supporting aboriginal knowledge and practice in health care: lessons from a qualitative evaluation of the strong women, strong babies, strong culture program
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12884-015-0433-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Lowell, Sue Kildea, Marlene Liddle, Barbara Cox, Barbara Paterson

Abstract

BackgroundThe Strong Women, Strong Babies, Strong Culture Program (the Program) evolved from a recognition of the value of Aboriginal knowledge and practice in promoting maternal and child health (MCH) in remote communities of the Northern Territory (NT) of Australia. Commencing in 1993 it continues to operate today. In 2008, the NT Department of Health commissioned an evaluation to identify enabling factors and barriers to successful implementation of the Program, and to identify potential pathways for future development. In this paper we focus on the evaluation findings related specifically to the role of Aborignal cultural knowledge and practice within the Program.MethodsA qualitative evaluation utilised purposive sampling to maximise diversity in program history and Aboriginal culture. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 76 participants were recorded in their preferred language with a registered Interpreter when required. Thematic analysis of data was verified or modified through further discussions with participants and members of the evaluation team.ResultsAlthough the importance of Aboriginal knowledge and practice as a fundamental component of the Program is widely acknowledged, there has been considerable variation across time and location in the extent to which these cultural dimensions have been included in practice. Factors contributing to this variation are complex and relate to a number of broad themes including: location of control over Program activities; recognition and respect for Aboriginal knowledge and practice as a legitimate component of health care; working in partnership; communication within and beyond the Program; access to transport and working space; and governance and organisational support.ConclusionsWe suggest that inclusion of Aboriginal knowledge and practice as a fundamental component of the Program is key to its survival over more than twenty years despite serious challenges. Respect for the legitimacy of Aboriginal knowledge and practice within health care, a high level of community participation and control supported through effective governance and sufficient organisational commitment as well as competence in intercultural collaborative practice of health staff are critical requirements for realising the potential for cultural knowledge and practice to improve Aboriginal health outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 159 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 37 23%
Student > Master 34 21%
Researcher 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Other 27 17%
Unknown 19 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 22%
Social Sciences 19 12%
Psychology 11 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 4%
Other 30 19%
Unknown 20 13%

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 09 February 2015.
All research outputs
#3,963,657
of 4,733,346 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#1,117
of 1,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,782
of 167,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#35
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,733,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,190 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. 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 167,127 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.