↓ Skip to main content

Involving hard-to-reach ethnic minorities in low-budget health research: lessons from a health survey among Moluccans in the Netherlands

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Involving hard-to-reach ethnic minorities in low-budget health research: lessons from a health survey among Moluccans in the Netherlands
Published in
BMC Research Notes, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13104-016-2124-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adee J. Bodewes, Anton E. Kunst

Abstract

There is little evidence on which strategies are effective in recruiting minority groups in low-budget health surveys. We evaluated different recruitment strategies for their impact on response rates in a hard-to-reach minority population in the Netherlands. We conducted a health survey in 19 Moluccan districts (MDs). Each MD had its own set of recruitment strategies, such as information meetings, involving social or local media, involving community organizations, and door-to-door collection. The association between recruitment strategies and MD-specific response rates was assessed with logistic regression analysis. The overall response rate was 24 %, and varied from 9 to 58 %. Higher rates were obtained when the strategy included door-to-door collection (OR 1.57) and 'active' key informants (OR 1.68). No positive associations with response rates were observed of the other strategies. The overall low response rate in this study may be due to high levels of distrust, segmentation within the community and high respect for privacy among Moluccans. Our study shows that in such communities, response may be increased by a highly personal recruitment approach and a strong commitment and participation of community key-figures.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 19%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Researcher 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 9 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 5 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 11%
Computer Science 2 7%
Psychology 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 9 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 June 2016.
All research outputs
#20,334,427
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,563
of 4,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#305,539
of 353,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#69
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 353,105 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.