↓ Skip to main content

Enablers and barriers to the implementation of primary health care interventions for Indigenous people with chronic diseases: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, May 2015
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 (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

30 tweeters


79 Dimensions

Readers on

240 Mendeley
3 CiteULike
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.
Enablers and barriers to the implementation of primary health care interventions for Indigenous people with chronic diseases: a systematic review
Published in
Implementation Science, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0261-x
Pubmed ID

Odette Gibson, Karolina Lisy, Carol Davy, Edoardo Aromataris, Elaine Kite, Craig Lockwood, Dagmara Riitano, Katharine McBride, Alex Brown


Access to appropriate, affordable, acceptable and comprehensive primary health care (PHC) is critical for improving the health of Indigenous populations. Whilst appropriate infrastructure, sufficient funding and knowledgeable health care professionals are crucial, these elements alone will not lead to the provision of appropriate care for all Indigenous people. This systematic literature review synthesised international evidence on the factors that enable or inhibit the implementation of interventions aimed at improving chronic disease care for Indigenous people. A systematic review using Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) (PubMed platform), Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), ATSIHealth, Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet via Informit Online and Primary Health Care Research and Information Service (PHCRIS) databases was undertaken. Studies were included if they described an intervention for one or more of six chronic conditions that was delivered in a primary health care setting in Australia, New Zealand, Canada or the United States. Attitudes, beliefs, expectations, understandings and knowledge of patients, their families, Indigenous communities, providers and policy makers were of interest. Published and unpublished qualitative and quantitative studies from 1998 to 2013 were considered. Qualitative findings were pooled using a meta-aggregative approach, and quantitative data were presented as a narrative summary. Twenty three studies were included. Meta-aggregation of qualitative data revealed five synthesised findings, related to issues within the design and planning phase of interventions, the chronic disease workforce, partnerships between service providers and patients, clinical care pathways and patient access to services. The available quantitative data supported the qualitative findings. Three key features of enablers and barriers emerged from the findings: (1) they are not fixed concepts but can be positively or negatively influenced, (2) the degree to which the work of an intervention can influence an enabler or barrier varies depending on their source and (3) they are inter-related whereby a change in one may effect a change in another. Future interventions should consider the findings of this review as it provides an evidence-base that contributes to the successful design, implementation and sustainability of chronic disease interventions in primary health care settings intended for Indigenous people.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 tweeters 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 240 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Peru 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 238 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 39 16%
Student > Master 34 14%
Researcher 25 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 10%
Other 16 7%
Other 54 23%
Unknown 47 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 56 23%
Social Sciences 23 10%
Psychology 8 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 28 12%
Unknown 54 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 14 March 2016.
All research outputs
of 21,369,958 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
of 1,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 249,471 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,369,958 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,675 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 249,471 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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