Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24282785›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of circumpolar health2013

Which Sámi? Sámi inclusion criteria in population-based studies of Sámi health and living conditions in Norway - an exploratory study exemplified with data from the SAMINOR study.

Torunn Pettersen, Magritt Brustad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of circumpolar health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Sami yoik, Sami history, Sami health: a narrative review.International journal of circumpolar health · 2018
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Hearing impairment is common among Saami adults in Northern Finland.International journal of circumpolar health · 2017
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Torunn PettersenCentre for Sámi Health Research, Department of Community Medicine, University of Tromsø, Norway ; Department of Social Sciences, Sámi University College, Guovdageaidnu/Kautokeino, Norway.
Magritt Brustad

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn a situation where national censuses do not record information on ethnicity, studies of the indigenous Sámi people's health and living conditions tend to use varying Sámi inclusion criteria and categorizations. Consequently, the basis on which Sámi study participants are included and categorized when Sámi health and living conditions are explored and compared differs. This may influence the results and conclusions drawn.

objectiveTo explore some numerical consequences of applying principles derived from Norway's Sámi Act as a foundation for formalized inclusion criteria in population-based Sámi studies in Norway.

designWe established 1 geographically based (G1) and 3 individual-based Sámi example populations (I1-I3) by applying diverse Sámi inclusion criteria to data from 17 rural municipalities in Norway north of the Arctic Circle. The data were collected for a population-based study of health and living conditions in 2003-2004 (the SAMINOR study). Our sample consisted of 14,797 participants aged 36-79 years.

resultsThe size of the individual-based populations varied significantly. I1 (linguistic connection Sámi) made up 35.5% of the sample, I2 (self-identified Sámi) made up 21.0% and I3 (active language Sámi) 17.7%. They were also noticeably unevenly distributed between the 5 Sámi regions defined for this study. The differences for the other characteristics studied were more ambiguous. For the population G1 (residents in the Sámi language area) the only significant difference found between the Sámi and the corresponding non-Sámi population was for household income (OR=0.69, 95% CI: 0.63-0.74). For the populations I1-I3 there were significant differences on all measures except for I2 and education (OR=1.09, 95% CI: 0.99-1.21).

conclusionsThe choice of Sámi inclusion criterion had a clear impact on the size and geographical distribution of the defined populations but lesser influence on the selected characteristics for the Sámi populations relative to the respective non-Sámi ones.

Indexed as

Epidemiologic MethodsSocial ConditionsSocial MarginalizationAdultAgedArctic RegionsBiasCensusesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedMinority GroupsMinority Healthethnicity datahealthinclusion criteriaindigenousliving conditionsNorwaypopulation-based studySámi

Identifiers

PMID24282785
PMCPMC3838972

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.