Spreading proven or promising Aboriginal health programs and implementing them in new settings can make cost-effective contributions to a range of Aboriginal Australian development, health and wellbeing, and educational outcomes. Studies have theorized the implementation of Aboriginal health programs but have not focused explicitly on the conditions that influenced their spread. This study examined the broader political, institutional, social and economic conditions that influenced negotiations to transfer, implement, adapt, and sustain one Aboriginal empowerment program-the Family Wellbeing (FWB) program-to at least 60 geographical sites across Australia over 24 years.
A historical account of the spread of the FWB Program was constructed using situational analysis, a theory-methods package derived from a poststructural interpretation of grounded theory methods. Data were collected from published empirical articles, evaluation reports and project articles, and interviews with 18 key actors in the spread of FWB. Social worlds and arenas maps were used to determine the organizations and their representative agents who were involved in FWB spread and to analyze the enabling and constraining conditions.
The program was transferred through three interwoven social arenas: employment and community development; training and capacity development; and social and emotional wellbeing promotion and empowerment research. Program spread was fostered by three primary conditions: government policies and the availability and Aboriginal control of funding and support; Aboriginal leadership, associated informal networks and capability; and research evidence that built credibility for the program.
The continued demand-driven transfer of empowerment programs requires policies that enable Aboriginal control of funding and Aboriginal leadership and networks. Flexible and sustained coordination of program delivery is best leveraged through regional innovation hubs that can work with partner organizations to tailor the program to local end-user needs. Associated research is also needed to evaluate, continually improve program quality, and build program credibility through evidence.
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 13 February 2019.
All research outputs
#4,343,483
of 24,372,222 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#1,753
of 12,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,719
of 335,085 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#42
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,372,222 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,461 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. 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 335,085 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
