↓ Skip to main content

Indigenous Youth Peer-Led Health Promotion in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the United States: A Systematic Review of the Approaches, Study Designs, and Effectiveness

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, February 2018
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 (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 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
Indigenous Youth Peer-Led Health Promotion in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the United States: A Systematic Review of the Approaches, Study Designs, and Effectiveness
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00031
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Vujcich, Jessica Thomas, Katy Crawford, James Ward

Abstract

Youth peer-led interventions have become a popular way of sharing health information with young people and appear well suited to Indigenous community contexts. However, no systematic reviews focusing on Indigenous youth have been published. We conducted a systematic review to understand the range and characteristics of Indigenous youth-led health promotion projects implemented and their effectiveness. A systematic search of Medline, Embase, and ProQuest Social Sciences databases was conducted, supplemented by gray literature searches. Included studies focused on interventions where young Indigenous people delivered health information to age-matched peers. Twenty-four studies were identified for inclusion, based on 20 interventions (9 Australian, 4 Canadian, and 7 from the United States of America). Only one intervention was evaluated using a randomized controlled study design. The majority of evaluations took the form of pre-post studies. Methodological limitations were identified in a majority of studies. Study outcomes included improved knowledge, attitude, and behaviors. Currently, there is limited high quality evidence for the effectiveness of peer-led health interventions with Indigenous young people, and the literature is dominated by Australian-based sexual health interventions. More systematic research investigating the effectiveness of peer-led inventions is required, specifically with Indigenous populations. To improve health outcomes for Indigenous youth, greater knowledge of the mechanisms and context under which peer-delivered health promotion is effective in comparison to other methods of health promotion is needed.

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.
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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 15%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Master 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Lecturer 5 5%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 26 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 15 16%
Social Sciences 14 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 12%
Psychology 9 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 31 33%
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 08 August 2018.
All research outputs
#3,712,504
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#1,332
of 10,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,671
of 446,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#33
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,276 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 446,078 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 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 68% of its contemporaries.