Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26537924›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2015

Addressing unresolved tensions to build effective partnerships: lessons from an Aboriginal cancer support network.

Beatriz Cuesta-Briand, Dawn Bessarab, Shaouli Shahid, Sandra C Thompson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Interventions to improve cancer survivorship among Indigenous Peoples and communities: a systematic review with a narrative synthesis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Beatriz Cuesta-BriandWestern Australian Centre for Rural Health, University of Western Australia, UWA, M706, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia. beatriz.cuesta-briand@uwa.edu.au.
Dawn BessarabCentre for Aboriginal Medical and Dental Health, UWA, Perth, Australia. dawn.bessarab@uwa.edu.au.
Shaouli ShahidWestern Australian Centre for Rural Health, University of Western Australia, UWA, M706, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia. shaouli.shahid@uwa.edu.au.
Sandra C ThompsonWestern Australian Centre for Rural Health, University of Western Australia, UWA, M706, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia. sandra.thompson@uwa.edu.au.
The University of Western Australia · AUTharawal Aboriginal · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer is the second leading cause of death among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and their survival once diagnosed with cancer is lower compared to that of other Australians. This highlights the need to improve cancer-related health services for Indigenous Australians although how to achieve this remains unclear. Cancer support groups provide emotional and practical support, foster a sense of community and belonging and can improve health outcomes. However, despite evidence on their positive effects on people affected by cancer, there is scarce information on the function and effectiveness of Indigenous-specific cancer peer-support programs in Australia. Using qualitative data from an evaluation study, this paper explores different understandings of how a cancer support group should operate and the impact of unresolved tensions following the establishment of an Indigenous women cancer peer-support network in a regional town in Western Australia.

methodsData were collected through semi-structured interviews with 24 participants purposively selected among Indigenous and mainstream healthcare service providers, and group members and clients. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were subjected to inductive thematic analysis. NVivo was used to manage the data and assist in the data analysis. Rigour was enhanced through team member checking, coding validation and peer debriefing.

resultsFlexibility and a resistance to formal structuring were at the core of how the group operated. It was acknowledged that the network partly owned its success to its fluid approach; however, most mainstream healthcare service providers believed that a more structured approach was needed for the group to be sustainable. This was seen as acting in opposition to the flexible, organic approach considered necessary to adequately respond to Indigenous women's needs. At the core of these tensions were opposing perspectives on the constructs of 'structure' and 'flexibility' between Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants.

conclusionsDespite the group's achievements, unresolved tensions between opposing perspectives on how a support group should operate negatively impacted on the working relationship between the group and mainstream service providers, and posed a threat to the Network's sustainability. Our results support the need to acknowledge and address different perspectives and world views in order to build strong, effective partnerships between service providers and Indigenous communities.

Indexed as

Conflict, PsychologicalHealth Services AccessibilitySocial SupportAdultAustraliaAustralian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander PeoplesFemaleHealth PersonnelHealth Services, IndigenousHumansMaleNeoplasmsQualitative ResearchSelf-Help Groups

Identifiers

PMID26537924
PMCPMC4634592
OpenAlexW2163144729

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.