The development of a supportive care needs assessment tool for Indigenous people with cancer

Background: Little is known about the supportive care needs of Indigenous people with cancer and to date, existing needs assessment tools have not considered cultural issues for this population. We aimed to adapt an existing supportive care needs assessment tool for use with Indigenous Australians with cancer. Methods: Face-to-face interviews with Indigenous cancer patients (n = 29) and five focus groups with Indigenous key-informants (n = 23) were conducted to assess the face and content validity, cultural acceptability, utility and relevance of the Supportive Care Needs Survey - Short Form 34 (SCNS-SF34) for use with Indigenous patients with cancer. Results: All items from the SCNS-SF34 were shortened and changed to use more appropriate language (e.g. the word 'anxiety' was substituted with 'worry'). Seven questions were omitted (e.g. items on death and future considerations) as they were deemed culturally inappropriate or irrelevant and 12 items were added (e.g. accessible transport). Optional instructions were added before the sexual items. The design and response format of the SCNS-SF34 was modified to make it easier to use for Indigenous cancer patients. Given the extensive modifications to the SCNS-SF34 and the liklihood of a different factor structure we consider this tool to be a new tool rather than a modification. The Supportive care needs assessment tool for Indigenous people (SCNAT-IP) shows promising face and content validity and will be useful in informing services where they need to direct their attention for these patients. Conclusions: Indigenous people with cancer have language, customs and specific needs that are not accommodated within the standard SCNS-SF34. Our SCNAT-IP improves acceptability, relevance and face validity for Indigenous-specific concerns. Our SCNAT-IP will allow screening for supportive care needs that are specific to Indigenous cancer patients' and greatly inform targeted policy development and practice.

Travel context : development of a model to measure destination brand performance across different travel situations

Purpose: There is a lack of theory relating to destination brand performance measurement in the destination branding literature, which emerged in the late 1990s (see for example Dosen, Vransevic, & Prebezac, 1998). Additionally, there is a lack of research about the importance of travel context in consumers’ destination decision making (Hu & Ritchie, 1993). This study develops a structural model to measure destination brand performance across different travel situations. The theory of planned behaviour (TpB) was utilised as a framework to underpin the consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) hierarchy to develop a model of destination brand performance. Research approach: A proposed model of destination brand performance was developed through a review of the literature. The first study was used to identify destination image attributes (the core construct) using an analysis of the literature, a document analysis, and personal interviews using the Repertory Test qualitative technique. Underpinned by Personal Construct Theory (PCT), the Repertory Test enables the elicitation of attributes consumers use to evaluate destinations when considering travel. Data was examined in the first study to i) identify any attribute differences in travel contexts and ii) create a scale for use in a questionnaire. A second study was conducted to test the proposed model using a questionnaire with eight groups of participants to assess four destinations across two travel contexts. The model was tested utilising structural equation modelling. Findings: The first study resulted in a list of 29 destination image attributes for use in a scale index. Attributes were assessed across travel contexts and few differences were identified. The second study assessed the congruence of destination brand identity (the destination marketing organisation’s desired image) and destination brand image (the actual perceptions held by consumers) using importance-performance analyses. Finally, the proposed model of destination brand performance was tested. Overall the data supported the model of destination brand performance across travel contexts and destinations. Additionally, this was compared to consumers’ decision sets, further supporting the model. Value: This research provides a contribution to the destination marketing literature through the development of a measurement of destination brand performance underpinned by TpB. Practically; it will provide destination marketing organisations with a tool to track destination brand performance, relative to key competing places, over time. This is important given the development of a destination brand is a long term endeavour.