↓ Skip to main content

A tertiary approach to improving equity in health: quantitative analysis of the Māori and Pacific Admission Scheme (MAPAS) process, 2008–2012

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, January 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 (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 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 tertiary approach to improving equity in health: quantitative analysis of the Māori and Pacific Admission Scheme (MAPAS) process, 2008–2012
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12939-015-0133-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elana Curtis, Erena Wikaire, Yannan Jiang, Louise McMillan, Rob Loto, Airini, Papaarangi Reid

Abstract

Achieving health equity for indigenous and ethnic minority populations requires the development of an ethnically diverse health workforce. This study explores a tertiary admission programme targeting Māori and Pacific applicants to nursing, pharmacy and health sciences (a precursor to medicine) at the University of Auckland (UoA), Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ). Application of cognitive and non-cognitive selection tools, including a Multiple Mini Interview (MMI), are examined. Indigenous Kaupapa Māori methodology guided analysis of the Māori and Pacific Admission Scheme (MAPAS) for the years 2008-2012. Multiple logistic regression models were used to identify the predicted effect of admission variables on the final MAPAS recommendation of best starting point for success in health professional study i.e. 'CertHSc' (Certificate in Health Sciences, bridging/foundation), 'Bachelor' (degree-level) or 'Not FMHS' (Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences). Regression analyses controlled for interview year, gender and ancestry. Of the 918 MAPAS interviewees: 35% (319) were Māori, 58% (530) Pacific, 7% (68) Māori/Pacific; 71% (653) school leavers; 72% (662) females. The average rank score was 167/320, 40-80 credits below guaranteed FMHS degree offers. Just under half of all interviewees were recommended 'CertHSc' 47% (428), 13% (117) 'Bachelor' and 38% (332) 'Not FMHS' as the best starting point. Strong associations were identified between Bachelor recommendation and exposure to Any 2 Sciences (OR:7.897, CI:3.855-16.175; p < 0.0001), higher rank score (OR:1.043, CI:1.034-1.052; p < 0.0001) and higher scores on MAPAS mathematics test (OR:1.043, CI:1.028-1.059; p < 0.0001). MMI stations had mixed associations, with academic preparation and career aspirations more consistently associated with recommendations. Our findings raise concerns about the ability of the secondary education sector to prepare Māori and Pacific students adequately for health professional study. A comprehensive tertiary admissions process using multiple tools for selection (cognitive and non-cognitive) and the provision of alternative entry pathways are recommended for indigenous and ethnic minority health workforce development. The application of the MMI within an equity and indigenous cultural context can support a holistic assessment of an applicant's potential to succeed within tertiary study. The new MAPAS admissions process may provide an exemplar for other tertiary institutions looking to widen participation via equity-targeted admission processes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Unknown 112 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Master 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Professor 6 5%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 37 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 11%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Psychology 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 43 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 18 March 2016.
All research outputs
#3,632,960
of 22,844,985 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#647
of 1,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,622
of 352,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#6
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,844,985 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,907 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 352,272 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.