↓ Skip to main content

Social and Emotional Wellbeing Screening for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders within Primary Health Care: A Series of Missed Opportunities?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Social and Emotional Wellbeing Screening for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders within Primary Health Care: A Series of Missed Opportunities?
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00159
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erika Langham, Janya McCalman, Veronica Matthews, Roxanne Gwendalyn Bainbridge, Barbara Nattabi, Irina Kinchin, Ross Bailie

Abstract

Social and emotional wellbeing (SEWB) is a critical determinant of health outcomes for Indigenous Australians. This study examined the extent to which primary healthcare services (PHSs) undertake SEWB screening and management of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients, and the variation in SEWB screening and management across Indigenous PHS. Cross-sectional analysis between 2012 and 2014 of 3,407 Indigenous client records from a non-representative sample of 100 PHSs in 4 Australian states/territory was undertaken to examine variation in the documentation of: (1) SEWB screening using identified measurement instruments, (2) concern regarding SEWB, (3) actions in response to concern, and (4) follow up actions. Binary logistic regression was used to determine the factors associated with screening. The largest variation in SEWB screening occurred at the state/territory level. The mean rate of screening across the sample was 26.6%, ranging from 13.7 to 37.1%. Variation was also related to PHS characteristics. A mean prevalence of identified SEWB concern was 13% across the sample, ranging from 9 to 45.1%. For the clients where SEWB concern was noted, 25.4% had no referral or PHS action recorded. Subsequent internal PHS follow up after 1 month occurred in 54.7% of cases; and six-monthly follow up of referrals to external services occurred in 50.9% of cases. Our findings suggest that the lack of a clear model or set of guidelines on best practice for screening for SEWB in Indigenous health may contribute to the wide variation in SEWB service provision. The results tell a story of missed opportunities: 73.4% of clients were not screened and no further action was taken for 25.4% for whom an SEWB concern was identified. There was no follow up for just under half of those for whom action was taken. There is a need for the development of national best practice guidelines for SEWB screening and management, accompanied by dedicated SEWB funding, and training for health service providers as well as ongoing monitoring of adherence with the guidelines. Further research on barriers to screening and follow up actions is also warranted.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Lecturer 2 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Researcher 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 18 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 5 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 19 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 15 May 2018.
All research outputs
#4,681,848
of 25,729,842 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#2,123
of 14,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,320
of 326,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#22
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,729,842 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,395 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 326,352 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.