↓ Skip to main content

Determinants and Gaps in Preventive Care Delivery for Indigenous Australians: A Cross-sectional Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
Determinants and Gaps in Preventive Care Delivery for Indigenous Australians: A Cross-sectional Analysis
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00034
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher Bailie, Veronica Matthews, Jodie Bailie, Paul Burgess, Kerry Copley, Catherine Kennedy, Liz Moore, Sarah Larkins, Sandra Thompson, Ross Stewart Bailie

Abstract

Potentially preventable chronic diseases are the greatest contributor to the health gap between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and non--Indigenous Australians. Preventive care is important for earlier detection and control of chronic disease, and a number of recent policy initiatives have aimed to enhance delivery of preventive care. We examined documented delivery of recommended preventive services for Indigenous peoples across Australia and investigated the influence of health center and client level factors on adherence to best practice guidelines. Clinical audit data from 2012 to 2014 for 3,623 well adult clients (aged 15-54) of 101 health centers from four Australian states and territories were analyzed to determine adherence to delivery of 26 recommended preventive services classified into five different modes of care on the basis of the way in which they are delivered (e.g., basic measurement; laboratory tests and imaging; assessment and brief interventions, eye, ear, and oral checks; follow-up of abnormal findings). Summary statistics were used to describe the delivery of each service item across jurisdictions. Multilevel regression models were used to quantify the variation in service delivery attributable to health center and client level factors and to identify factors associated with higher quality care. Delivery of recommended preventive care varied widely between service items, with good delivery of most basic measurements but poor follow-up of abnormal findings. Health center characteristics were associated with most variation. Higher quality care was associated with Northern Territory location, urban services, and smaller service population size. Client factors associated with higher quality care included age between 25 and 34 years, female sex, and more regular attendance. Wide variation in documented preventive care delivery, poor follow-up of abnormal findings, and system factors that influence quality of care should be addressed through continuous quality improvement approaches that engage stakeholders at multiple levels (including, for example, access to care in the community, appropriate decision support for practitioners, and financial incentives and context appropriate guidelines).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Peru 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 61 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 17%
Student > Bachelor 9 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Other 14 22%
Unknown 14 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Engineering 4 6%
Computer Science 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Other 15 24%
Unknown 18 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 31 March 2016.
All research outputs
#15,405,684
of 25,729,842 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#4,513
of 14,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,356
of 315,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#39
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,729,842 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 315,621 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.