↓ Skip to main content

Inequity in dialysis related practices and outcomes in Aotearoa/New Zealand: a Kaupapa Māori analysis

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
118 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
Inequity in dialysis related practices and outcomes in Aotearoa/New Zealand: a Kaupapa Māori analysis
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12939-018-0737-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tania Huria, Suetonia Palmer, Lutz Beckert, Jonathan Williman, Suzanne Pitama

Abstract

In Aotearoa/New Zealand, Māori, as the indigenous people, experience chronic kidney disease at three times the rate of non-Māori, non-Pacific New Zealanders. Māori commence dialysis treatment for end-stage kidney disease at three times the rate of New Zealand European adults. To examine for evidence of inequity in dialysis-related incidence, treatment practices, and survival according to indigeneity in Aotearoa/New Zealand, utilising a Kaupapa Māori approach. We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving adults who commenced treatment for end-stage kidney disease in Aotearoa/New Zealand between 2002 and 2011. We extracted data from the Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry (ANZDATA) linked to the New Zealand National Health Index (NHI). Propensity score methods were used to assemble a cohort of 1039 Māori patients matched 1:1 on clinical and socio-demographic characteristics with a cohort of 1026 non-Māori patients. We compared incidence of end-stage kidney disease and treatment practices. Differences in the risks of all-cause mortality during treatment between propensity-matched cohorts were estimated using Cox proportional hazards and generalised linear models. Non-Māori patients were older, more frequently lived in urban areas (83% versus 67% [standardised difference 0.38]) and bore less socioeconomic deprivation (36% living in highest decile areas versus 14% [0.53]). Fewer non-Māori patients had diabetes (35% versus 69%, [- 0.72]) as a cause of kidney failure. Non-Māori patients were more frequently treated with peritoneal dialysis (34% versus 29% [0.11]), received a pre-emptive kidney transplant (4% vs 1% [0.19]), and were referred to specialist care < 3 months before treatment (25% vs 19% [0.15]) than Māori patients. Fewer non-Māori started dialysis with a non-tunnelled dialysis vascular catheter (43% versus 47% [- 0.08]). The indigenous-age standardised incidence rate ratio for non-Māori commencing renal replacement therapy in 2011 was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.40-0.61) compared with Māori. Propensity score matching generated cohorts with similar characteristics, although non-Māori less frequently started dialysis with a non-tunnelled venous catheter (30% versus 47% [- 0.35]) or lived remotely (3% versus 14% [- 0.50]). In matched cohorts, non-Māori experienced lower all-cause mortality at 5 yr. after commencement of treatment (risk ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.72-0.84). New Zealand European patients experienced lower mortality than Māori patients in indigenous age-standardised analyses (age-standardised mortality rate ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.51-0.67). Non-Māori patients are treated with temporary dialysis vascular access less often than Māori, and experience longer life expectancy with dialysis, even when socioeconomic, demographic, and geographical factors are equivalent. Based on these disparities, health services should monitor and address inequitable treatment practices and outcomes in end-stage kidney disease care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 118 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Student > Master 12 10%
Researcher 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 47 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 10%
Social Sciences 11 9%
Psychology 8 7%
Unspecified 5 4%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 45 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 21 December 2020.
All research outputs
#1,941,633
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#316
of 1,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,620
of 331,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#9
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,925 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 331,055 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.