| Literature DB >> 24625235 |
Gillian S Gould1, Kerrianne Watt, Leah Stevenson, Andy McEwen, Yvonne Cadet-James, Alan R Clough.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Smoking rates in Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples remain high, with limited impact of government measures for many subgroups. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate differences in organisational practice for developing anti-tobacco messages for these target populations.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24625235 PMCID: PMC3995618 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-250
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Figure 1Flow diagram of selection of organisations for the study.
Figure 2Beattie’s health promotion model. (Adapted from Beattie A. [19]).
Correspondences between theories for tailoring health messages
| Surface structure | Peripheral strategies |
| | Linguistic strategies |
| | Evidential strategies |
| Deep structure | Constituent-involving strategies |
| Sociocultural strategies |
Definitions of terms:
Surface structure: matching materials and messages to ‘superficial’ characteristics of target population.
Deep structure: incorporating cultural, social and historical, mental and psychological forces that influence the targeted health behaviour.
Peripheral strategies: give the appearance of cultural appropriateness by colours, images etc.
Linguistic strategies: make materials more accessible through the use of appropriate language.
Evidential strategies: use epidemiological evidence specific to a population.
Constituent-involving strategies: draw directly on experiences of members of the target group.
Sociocultural strategies: places health issues in context of social and cultural values.
Variables covered in the questionnaire
| • | Location of organisation – coded into urban (RA1), regional (RA2-3), or remote (RA4-5), using ASGC-RA* |
| • | Role of person in organisation (6 response options e.g. AHW, administrative, researcher)* |
| • | Organisation type (AMS, hospital/health service, University, research organisation, NGO, GO, other – recoded into AMS, GO, NGO, University) |
| • | Orientation to general population or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples |
| • | Overview of program – open ended |
| • | Adapted or newly made messages (Y/N) |
| • | Messages as stand alone or part of a program (Y/N)* |
| • | Target groups (youth, pregnant, elders, adult men, adult women, other) |
| • | Different message styles for target groups (Y/N) |
| • | Degree messages developed by a bottom-up vs. top-down approach - scale 1 (mostly bottom-up) to 10 (mostly top-down) |
| • | Degree messages aimed at individuals vs. community - scale 1 (mostly individual) to 10 (mostly community) |
| • | Theoretical framework (Y/N – describe if Y) |
| • | Type of messages (7 response options e.g. educational, threat, positive benefit) |
| • | Community consultation (Y/N) |
| • | How information from the community was gathered (10 response options e.g. community groups, surveys)* |
| • | Topics explored with community (13 response options e.g. knowledge, threat from smoking, barriers to quit)* |
| • | Cultural challenges (Y/N - describe if Y)* |
| • | Input sources for development (7 response options e.g. community, survey results, expert advice)* |
| • | Personnel used for advice (10 response options e.g. AHWs, other health professionals, health promotion advisors, Indigenous artists) – recoded into Indigenous advisors (Y/N) |
| • | Message features (16 response options e.g. Indigenous theme, health related statistics, effect of tobacco on family) - recoded into number of superficial and deep structures (see text) |
| • | Recommended actions (Y/N) |
| • | Recommended actions if Y (7 response options e.g. quit smoking, see GP, ring Quitline) recoded into referral options <2 or ≥2 |
| • | Pre-tests with community (Y/N) |
| • | How pretested (8 response options e.g. informal discussion, reference group, survey) |
| • | Unexpected outcomes (Y/N - describe if Y)* |
| • | Developed resources (Y/N)* |
| • | Community consulted about resources (Y/N)* |
| • | Resources developed (15 response options e.g. posters, DVD, T-shirts) recoded into print media, digital media, TV ads, merchandise, resources for quit groups, training, and other* |
| • | Area of distribution (5 response options e.g. local, regional)* |
| • | Messages/resources tested or evaluated (Y/N). ‘Evaluations planned’ were formulated from notes of discussion about evaluation when N was indicated |
| • | What tested (8 response options e.g. knowledge, quit rates, smoke-free spaces)* |
Legend: AMS = Aboriginal Medical Service; GO = government organisation; NGO = non-government organisation; Y = yes; N = no; RA = remoteness area classification; AHW – Aboriginal Health Worker. ASGC-RA = Australian Standard Geographical Classifications - Remoteness Area [22]. *Indicates findings not reported here – for further information contact author or refer to full report [23].
Message characteristics of organisation types
| | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | |
| 30 (64%) | 19 (86%) | 6 (46%) | 3 (38%) | 2 (50%) | |
| 26 (55%) | 11(50%) | 9 (69%) | 4 (50%) | 2 (50%) | |
| 24 (51%) | 12 (55%) | 8 (62%) | 4 (50%) | 1 (25%) | |
| 15 (32%) | 10 (45%) | 3 (23%) | 1 (13%) | 1 (25%) | |
| 26 (55%) | 9 (41%) | 10 (77%) | 5 (63%) | 2 (50%) | |
| 45 (96%) | 21 (95%) | 12 (92%) | 8 (100%) | 4 (100%) | |
| 46 (98%) | 22 (100%) | 12 (92%) | 8 (100%) | 4 (100%) | |
| | | | | | |
| 35 (75%) | 16 (73%) | 7 (54%) | 8 (100%) | 4 (100%) | |
| 41 (87%) | 21 (95%) | 10 (77%) | 6 (75%) | 4 (100%) | |
| 18 (38%) | 9 (41%) | 3 (23%) | 4 (50%) | 2 (50%) | |
| 37 (79%) | 19 (86%) | 8 (62%) | 7 (88%) | 3 (75%) | |
| 44(94%) | 22 (100%) | 11 (85%) | 7 (88%) | 4 (100%) | |
| 31 (66%) | 16 (73%) | 7 (54%) | 5 (63%) | 3 (75%) | |
| 33 (70%) | 19 (86%) | 7 (54%) | 3 (38%) | 4 (100%) | |
| 34 (72%) | 18 (82%) | 7 (54%) | 5 (63%) | 4 (100%) | |
| 25 (53%) | 7 (32%) | 7 (54%) | 7 (88%) | 4 (100%) |
Legend: AMS = Aboriginal Medical Service; GO = government organisation; NGO = non-government organisation; Uni = university.
Figure 3Scatter-plot of ratings of bottom-up vs. top-down and individual vs. community approaches.
Figure 4Component loadings from CATPCA on eight retained variables. Component loadings as Pearson correlations range between -1 and 1 in this two dimensional solution. The variables form two groups defined here as “Cultural Understanding” and “Rigour”. The co-ordinates of the end point of each vector are given by the loadings of each variable on the first and second dimensions. The variables closely grouped together in the plot are positively related. Vectors making a 90-degree angle indicate they are not related. Legend: ‘Community’ = Individual vs. community orientation; ‘Bottom-up’ = Bottom-up vs. Top-down approach; ‘deep features” = numbers of deep message features; ‘pretest’ = a pretest was conducted; ‘eval done/planned’ = an evaluation was either completed or planned; ‘evaluated’ = evaluation was completed; ‘theory’ = a theoretical framework was used; ‘orientation’ = the organisation usually served the general population vs. the Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander populations.
Figure 5Biplot of the organisation types. Objects represented by circles and the component loadings indicated by vectors from the CATPCA solution on the eight variables. The vectors for the component loadings have been adjusted to the range of the objects for clarity. The organisations that are plotted between the two ‘arms’ of the vector groups are high on both “cultural understanding” and “rigour”. (Variables omitted). Legend: cats = categories; AMS = Aboriginal Medical Service; GO = government organisation; NGO = non-government organisation; Uni = University.