↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of studies evaluating Australian indigenous community development projects: the extent of community participation, their methodological quality and their outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, November 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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
13 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 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
A systematic review of studies evaluating Australian indigenous community development projects: the extent of community participation, their methodological quality and their outcomes
Published in
BMC Public Health, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2514-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mieke Snijder, Anthony Shakeshaft, Annemarie Wagemakers, Anne Stephens, Bianca Calabria

Abstract

Community development is a health promotion approach identified as having great potential to improve Indigenous health, because of its potential for extensive community participation. There has been no systematic examination of the extent of community participation in community development projects and little analysis of their effectiveness. This systematic review aims to identify the extent of community participation in community development projects implemented in Australian Indigenous communities, critically appraise the qualitative and quantitative methods used in their evaluation, and summarise their outcomes. Ten electronic peer-reviewed databases and two electronic grey literature databases were searched for relevant studies published between 1990 and 2015. The level of community participation and the methodological quality of the qualitative and quantitative components of the studies were assessed against standardised criteria. Thirty one evaluation studies of community development projects were identified. Community participation varied between different phases of project development, generally high during project implementation, but low during the evaluation phase. For the majority of studies, methodological quality was low and the methods were poorly described. Although positive qualitative or quantitative outcomes were reported in all studies, only two studies reported statistically significant outcomes. Partnerships between researchers, community members and service providers have great potential to improve methodological quality and community participation when research skills and community knowledge are integrated to design, implement and evaluate community development projects. The methodological quality of studies evaluating Australian Indigenous community development projects is currently too weak to confidently determine the cost-effectiveness of community development projects in improving the health and wellbeing of Indigenous Australians. Higher quality studies evaluating community development projects would strengthen the evidence base.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 25 23%
Student > Master 17 15%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Other 22 20%
Unknown 16 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 24 22%
Social Sciences 22 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 13%
Psychology 9 8%
Engineering 4 4%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 18 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 02 February 2021.
All research outputs
#1,938,156
of 17,614,750 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,220
of 11,881 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,243
of 374,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#209
of 1,127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,614,750 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,881 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 374,129 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.