↓ Skip to main content

Strengths and limitations of a tool for monitoring and evaluating First Peoples’ health promotion from an ecological perspective

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
Strengths and limitations of a tool for monitoring and evaluating First Peoples’ health promotion from an ecological perspective
Published in
BMC Public Health, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2550-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kevin Rowley, Joyce Doyle, Leah Johnston, Rachel Reilly, Leisa McCarthy, Mayatili Marika, Therese Riley, Petah Atkinson, Bradley Firebrace, Julie Calleja, Margaret Cargo

Abstract

An ecological approach to health and health promotion targets individuals and the environmental determinants of their health as a means of more effectively influencing health outcomes. The approach has potential value as a means to more accurately capture the holistic nature of Australian First Peoples' health programs and the way in which they seek to influence environmental, including social, determinants of health. We report several case studies of applying an ecological approach to health program evaluation using a tool developed for application to mainstream public health programs in North America - Richard's ecological coding procedure. We find the ecological approach in general, and the Richard procedure specifically, to have potential for broader use as an approach to reporting and evaluation of health promotion programs. However, our experience applying this tool in academic and community-based program evaluation contexts, conducted in collaboration with First Peoples of Australia, suggests that it would benefit from cultural adaptations that would bring the ecological coding procedure in greater alignment with the worldviews of First Peoples and better identify the aims and strategies of local health promotion programs. Establishing the cultural validity of the ecological coding procedure is necessary to adequately capture the underlying program activities of community-based health promotion programs designed to benefit First Peoples, and its collaborative implementation with First Peoples supports a human rights approach to health program evaluation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 73 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Researcher 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 19 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 15 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Psychology 5 7%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 23 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 December 2015.
All research outputs
#13,852,167
of 21,338,015 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#10,184
of 13,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,651
of 402,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#819
of 1,139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,338,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,838 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 402,181 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,139 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.