↓ Skip to main content

The Picture Talk Project: Starting a Conversation with Community Leaders on Research with Remote Aboriginal Communities of Australia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 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
The Picture Talk Project: Starting a Conversation with Community Leaders on Research with Remote Aboriginal Communities of Australia
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12910-017-0191-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

E.F.M. Fitzpatrick, G. Macdonald, A.L.C. Martiniuk, H. D’Antoine, J. Oscar, M. Carter, T. Lawford, E.J. Elliott

Abstract

Researchers are required to seek consent from Indigenous communities prior to conducting research but there is inadequate information about how Indigenous people understand and become fully engaged with this consent process. Few studies evaluate the preference or understanding of the consent process for research with Indigenous populations. Lack of informed consent can impact on research findings. The Picture Talk Project was initiated with senior Aboriginal leaders of the Fitzroy Valley community situated in the far north of Western Australia. Aboriginal people were interviewed about their understanding and experiences of research and consent processes. Transcripts were analysed using NVivo10 software with an integrated method of inductive and deductive coding and based in grounded theory. Local Aboriginal interpreters validated coding. Major themes were defined and supporting quotes sourced. Interviews with Aboriginal leaders (n = 20) were facilitated by a local Aboriginal Community Navigator who could interpret if necessary and provide cultural guidance. Participants were from all four major local language groups of the Fitzroy Valley; aged 31 years and above; and half were male. Themes emerging from these discussions included Research-finding knowledge; Being respectful of Aboriginal people, Working on country, and Being flexible with time; Working together with good communication; Reciprocity-two-way learning; and Reaching consent. The project revealed how much more there is to be learned about how research with remote Aboriginal communities should be conducted such that it is both culturally respectful and, importantly, meaningful for participants. We identify important elements in community consultation about research and seeking consent.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

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 > Master 11 16%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 25 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 13%
Psychology 7 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 28 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 June 2018.
All research outputs
#14,389,089
of 24,180,797 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#746
of 1,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,078
of 314,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#20
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,180,797 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,036 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 314,679 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.