Conceptualizing special interest tourism - frameworks for analysis

To advance understanding of Special Interest Tourism (SIT), this paper will explore the complexities of this phenomenon in the early 21st century. First, a look at what is out there, both from a supply and demand perspective, will serve to paint a broad picture at macro-level. The paper will present a discussion of the SIT phenomenon at the macro-level within a triangular relationship of supply, demand and media. Then, a more specific look at SIT attempts to clarify the ambiguity of the term. Finally, a look at micro-level from the consumer's perspective will introduce the concepts of enduring and situational involvement, and the nature of the product. Proposed frameworks are presented to provide structure and possible directions for future research and as a means of progressing conceptual development. (c) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Destination image, romance and place experience - an application of intimacy theory in tourism

In some forms of tourism, and perhaps particularly in the case of special interest tourism, it can be argued that tourism encounters are service relationships with emotional attachment through the special interest focus and a level of enduring involvement on the part of participants. This involvement is two-fold. First, an interest with the activity; second, a sharing with like-minded people in a social world that extends from home to tourist destination and return. Intimacies in tourism can thus be interpreted through the model of the relationship cycle that comprises the stages A. Aquaintance, B, Buildup, C, Continuation and D, Dissolution. The paper builds upon this concept by utilising ideas of other-centred and self-centredness in personal relationships, and extends the concept of other-centredness to host environments. It also suggests that, in the academic literature about place, location may be secondary in that the quality of experience is primarily determined by the intimacies that exist between people at that place, especially that existing between visitors. © 2004 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Public and private psychiatry: Can they work together and is it worth the effort?

Objective: Partnerships in mental health care, particularly between public and private psychiatric services, are being increasingly recognized as important for optimizing patient management and the efficient organization of services. However, public sector mental health services and private psychiatrists do not always work well together and there seem to be a number of barriers to effective collaboration. This study set out to investigate the extent of collaborative 'shared care' arrangements between a public mental health service and private psychiatrists practising nearby. It also examined possible barriers to collaboration and some possible solutions to the identified problems. Method: A questionnaire examining the above factors was sent to all public sector mental health clinicians and all private psychiatrists in the area. Results: One hundred and five of the 154 (68.2%) public sector clinicians and 103 of the 194 (53.1%) private psychiatrists returned surveys. The main barriers to successful collaboration identified by members of both sectors were: 'Difficulty communicating' endorsed by 71.4% of public clinicians and 72% of private psychiatrists, 'Confusion of roles and responsibilities' endorsed by 62.9% and 66%, respectively, and 'Different treatment approach' by 47.6% and 45.6%, respectively. Over 60% of private psychiatrists identified problems with access to the public system as a barrier to successful shared care arrangements. It also emerged, as hypothesized, that the public and private systems tend to manage different patient populations and that public clinicians in particular are not fully aware of the private psychiatrists' range of expertise. This would result in fewer referrals for shared care across the sectors. Conclusions: A number of barriers to public sector clinicians and private psychiatrists collaborating in shared care arrangements were identified. The two groups surveyed identified similar barriers. Some of these can potentially be addressed by changes to service systems. Others require cultural shifts in both sectors. Improved communications including more opportunities for formal and informal meetings between people working in the two sectors would be likely to improve the understanding of the complementary sector's perspective and practice. Further changes would be expected to require careful work between the sectors on training, employment and practice protocols and initiatives, to allow better use of the existing services and resources.