↓ Skip to main content

Addressing unresolved tensions to build effective partnerships: lessons from an Aboriginal cancer support network

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Addressing unresolved tensions to build effective partnerships: lessons from an Aboriginal cancer support network
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12939-015-0259-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Beatriz Cuesta-Briand, Dawn Bessarab, Shaouli Shahid, Sandra C. Thompson

Abstract

Cancer is the second leading cause of death among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and their survival once diagnosed with cancer is lower compared to that of other Australians. This highlights the need to improve cancer-related health services for Indigenous Australians although how to achieve this remains unclear. Cancer support groups provide emotional and practical support, foster a sense of community and belonging and can improve health outcomes. However, despite evidence on their positive effects on people affected by cancer, there is scarce information on the function and effectiveness of Indigenous-specific cancer peer-support programs in Australia. Using qualitative data from an evaluation study, this paper explores different understandings of how a cancer support group should operate and the impact of unresolved tensions following the establishment of an Indigenous women cancer peer-support network in a regional town in Western Australia. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 24 participants purposively selected among Indigenous and mainstream healthcare service providers, and group members and clients. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were subjected to inductive thematic analysis. NVivo was used to manage the data and assist in the data analysis. Rigour was enhanced through team member checking, coding validation and peer debriefing. Flexibility and a resistance to formal structuring were at the core of how the group operated. It was acknowledged that the network partly owned its success to its fluid approach; however, most mainstream healthcare service providers believed that a more structured approach was needed for the group to be sustainable. This was seen as acting in opposition to the flexible, organic approach considered necessary to adequately respond to Indigenous women's needs. At the core of these tensions were opposing perspectives on the constructs of 'structure' and 'flexibility' between Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants. Despite the group's achievements, unresolved tensions between opposing perspectives on how a support group should operate negatively impacted on the working relationship between the group and mainstream service providers, and posed a threat to the Network's sustainability. Our results support the need to acknowledge and address different perspectives and world views in order to build strong, effective partnerships between service providers and Indigenous communities.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Argentina 1 2%
Unknown 48 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 14 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 14%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Psychology 3 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 18 37%

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 30 November 2019.
All research outputs
#5,179,305
of 16,295,273 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#837
of 1,437 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,558
of 262,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,295,273 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,437 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 262,970 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 58% 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