Development of the What Matters 2 Adults (WM2A) wellbeing measure for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults.

PURPOSE: As wellbeing is culturally bound, wellbeing measures for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples must be culturally relevant and grounded in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander values and preferences. We describe the development of a nationally-relevant and culturally grounded wellbeing measure for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults: the What Matters to Adults (WM2A) measure. METHODS: We used a mixed methods approach to measure development, combining Indigenist methodologies and psychometric methods. Candidate items were derived through a large national qualitative study. Think-aloud interviews (n = 17) were conducted to assess comprehension, acceptability, and wording of candidate items. Two national surveys collected data on the item pool (n = 312, n = 354). Items were analysed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and item response theory (IRT) to test dimensionality, local dependence and item fit. A Collaborative Yarning approach ensured Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices were privileged throughout. RESULTS: Fifty candidate items were developed, refined, and tested. Using EFA, an eight factor model was developed. All items met pre-specified thresholds for maximum endorsement frequencies, and floor and ceiling effects; no item redundancy was identified. Ten items did not meet thresholds for aggregate adjacent endorsement frequencies. During Collaborative Yarning, six items were removed based on low factor loadings (<0.4) and twelve due to conceptual overlap, high correlations with other items, endorsement frequencies, and/or low IRT item level information. Several items were retained for content validity. The final measure includes 32 items across 10 domains (Balance & control; Hope & resilience; Caring for others; Culture & Country; Spirit & identity; Feeling valued; Connection with others; Access; Racism & worries; Pride & strength). CONCLUSIONS: The unique combination of Indigenist and psychometric methodologies to develop WM2A ensures a culturally and psychometrically robust measure, relevant across a range of settings and applications.

Cancer survival differentials for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Queensland: the impact of remoteness.

PURPOSE: In Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (First Nations population) often have low overall cancer survival, as do all residents of geographically remote areas. This study aimed to quantify the survival disparity between First Nations and other Queenslanders for 12 common cancer types by remoteness areas. METHODS: For all Queensland residents aged 20-89 years diagnosed with a primary invasive cancer during 1997-2016, we ran flexible parametric survival models incorporating age, First Nations status, sex, diagnosis time period, area-level socioeconomic status, remoteness categories and where appropriate, broad cancer type. Three survival measures were predicted: cause-specific survival, survival differences and the comparative survival ratio, each standardised to First Nations peoples' covariate distributions. RESULTS: The standardised five-year cause-specific cancer survival was 60% for urban First Nations and 65% for other Queenslanders, while remote residents were 54% (First Nations) and 58% (other). The absolute survival differential between First Nations and other Queenslanders was often similar, regardless of remoteness of residence. The greatest absolute difference in five-year standardised cancer survival was for head and neck cancers, followed by cervical cancer. The five-year comparative survival ratio (First Nations: other Queenslanders) for urban cancer patients was 0.91 (95% CI 0.90-0.93), similar to outer regional, inner regional and remote areas. The greatest comparative survival differential was for oesophageal cancer. CONCLUSION: First Nations' survival inequalities are largely independent of geographical remoteness. It remains a priority to determine the contribution of other potential factors such as the availability of culturally acceptable diagnostic, management and/or support services.

How well is the National Cervical Screening Program performing for Indigenous Australian women? Why we don't really know, and what we can and should do about it.

Since its inception in 1991, Australia's organised approach to cervical screening, the National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP), has seen a 50% reduction in both incidence and mortality from cervical cancer in Australia. However, Indigenous Australian women continue to experience a disproportionately higher burden of cervical cancer. No national data on screening participation of Indigenous women currently exist, in large part because pathology forms, the primary source of data for Pap Test Registers (PTR), do not record Indigenous status. While including Indigenous status on pathology forms is the obvious solution for producing essential information about cervical screening of Indigenous women, this will require an appropriate consultative process and it will be many years before reliable data are available. One interim option being explored is the feasibility of linking the PTR to another data source which includes Indigenous status, such as hospital data. However, despite its promise, there remain major impediments to obtaining useful linked data in Australia, and it continues to be unclear whether such an approach is viable for routine reporting. If we are to understand and improve cervical screening participation and outcomes for Indigenous women in the foreseeable future, Australia needs to act now to include Indigenous status in pathology forms and (subsequently) PTRs.