↓ Skip to main content

Policy context and narrative leading to the commissioning of the Australian Indigenous Burden of Disease study

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
Policy context and narrative leading to the commissioning of the Australian Indigenous Burden of Disease study
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12961-015-0004-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jessica R Botfield, Anthony B Zwi, Peter S Hill

Abstract

Burden of disease (BoD) studies have been conducted in numerous international settings since the early 1990's. Two national BoD studies have been undertaken in Australia, in 1998 and 2003, although neither study estimated the BoD specifically for Indigenous Australians. In 2005 the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health formally commissioned the University of Queensland to undertake, in parallel with the second national BoD study, the "Burden of Disease and Injury in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples" study, drawing on available data up to 2003. This paper is part of a broader NHMRC-funded project that examines the uptake of evidence to policy, using the 2007 Indigenous BoD (IBoD) study as a case study. This study aims to explore the policy context and narrative in the lead up to commissioning the IBoD study, focusing on relevant contextual factors and insights regarding the perspectives and anticipated value of the study by key stakeholders. A systematic review of the literature was undertaken in late 2013 and early 2014, and the findings triangulated with 38 key informant interviews with Indigenous and non-Indigenous academics, researchers, statisticians, policy advisors, and policymakers, conducted between 2011 and 2013. Contextual features which led to commissioning the IBoD study included widespread recognition of longstanding Indigenous disadvantage, lower life expectancy than non-Indigenous Australians, and the lack of an adequate evidence base upon which to determine priorities for interventions. Several anticipated benefits and expectations of key stakeholders were identified. Most informants held at least one of the following expectations of the study: that it would inform the evidence base, contribute to priority setting, and/or inform policy. There were differing or entirely contrasting views to this however, with some sharing concerns about the study being undertaken at all. The IBoD study, in concept, offered the potential to generate much desired 'answers', in the form of a quantified ranking of health risks and disease burden, and it was hoped by many that the results of the study would feed into determining priorities and informing Indigenous health policy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Student > Master 3 7%
Librarian 3 7%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 20 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Social Sciences 5 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 23 50%
Attention Score in Context

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 07 May 2015.
All research outputs
#13,503,146
of 23,298,349 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#957
of 1,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,732
of 262,544 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#16
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,298,349 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,231 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 262,544 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.