↓ Skip to main content

“We are everything to everyone”: a systematic review of factors influencing the accountability relationships of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health workers (AHWs) in the Australian health…

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, May 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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
20 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 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
“We are everything to everyone”: a systematic review of factors influencing the accountability relationships of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health workers (AHWs) in the Australian health system
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12939-018-0779-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephanie M. Topp, Alexandra Edelman, Sean Taylor

Abstract

Health policy in Australia positions Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Workers (AHWs) as central to improving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' health, with high expectations of their contribution to closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous health outcomes. Understanding how AHWs' governance and accountability relationships influence their ability to address such health inequities has policy, programme and ethical significance. We sought to map the evidence of AHWs' experiences of accountability in the Australian health system. We followed an adapted qualitative systematic review process to map evidence on accountability relations in the published literature. We sought empirical studies or first-person accounts describing AHWs' experiences of working in government or Aboriginal community-controlled services anywhere in Australia. Findings were organised according to van Belle and Mayhew's four dimensions of accountability - social, political, provider and organisational. Of 27 included studies, none had a primary focus on AHW governance or AHWs' accountability relationships. Nonetheless, selected articles provided some insight into AHWs' experiences of accountability across van Belle and Mayhew's four dimensions. In the social dimension, AHWs' sense of connection and belonging to community was reflected in the importance placed on AHWs' cultural brokerage and advocacy functions. But social and cultural obligations overlapped and sometimes clashed with organisational and provider-related accountabilities. AHWs described having to straddle cultural obligations (e.g. related to gender, age and kinship) alongside the expectations of non-Indigenous colleagues and supervisors which were underpinned by 'Western' models of clinical governance and management. Lack of role-clarity stemming from weakly constituted (state-based) career structures was linked to a system-wide misunderstanding of AHWs' roles and responsibilities - particularly the cultural components - acting as a barrier to AHWs working to their full capacity for the benefit of patients, broader society and their own professional satisfaction. In literature spanning different geographies, service domains and several decades, this review found evidence of complexity in AHWs' accountability relationships that both affects individual and team performance. However, theoretically informed and systematic investigation of accountability relationships and related issues, including the power dynamics that underpin AHW governance and performance in often diverse settings, remains limited and more work in this area is required.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 150 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 15%
Researcher 13 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Other 10 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 7%
Other 24 16%
Unknown 59 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 27 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 12%
Social Sciences 14 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 4%
Psychology 5 3%
Other 17 11%
Unknown 63 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 26 April 2022.
All research outputs
#1,627,723
of 24,257,963 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#237
of 2,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,516
of 335,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#8
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,257,963 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 2,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 335,101 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.