Search

Introduction. The volume and quality of online health information requires consumers to be discerning. Aim. This study aimed to explore consumer Internet use for health information, preferred format and what factors helped them to trust the source. Methods. A cross-sectional study was conducted in 2016–2017 with adults attending three cardiology outpatient clinic sites using a short paper-based survey. The survey included questions regarding online health information use and perceived trustworthiness with opportunities for free text responses. Survey data were summarised with key questions adjusted by age group, gender and ethnicity using logistic regression. Results. Of the 708 respondents (51% women, 66% aged 45–74 years, 16% Māori, 12% Pacific), 73% had sought health information online (64% in the previous 12 months), commonly for medication side effects, their health condition and self-help. Most (65%) were successful, although Pacific respondents reported a lower likelihood of search success compared to Europeans. Younger age groups were more concerned about information quality. Fact sheets (80%) were the most popular format and for all ethnic groups, followed by short videos (31%) and discussion groups (23%). Trusting online information required many strategies with 72% wanting health professionals to recommend websites. Discussion. Online health information seeking is a norm for consumers, with simple fact sheets being the preferred format to build knowledge and skills. With the rising tide of misinformation, health portal providers need to offer accurate and easy-to-read fact sheets in their suite of formats and health professionals need to support consumers guiding them to trusted websites. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Primary care in Aotearoa New Zealand is largely delivered by general practices, heavily subsidised by government. Te Tiriti o Waitangi (1840) guarantees equal health outcomes for Māori and non-Māori, but differences are stark and longstanding. Seven models of primary care have evolved. We hypothesised that patient health outcomes would differ between models of care; and that Māori, Pacific peoples and those living in material deprivation would have poorer outcomes from primary care. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of patient-level data from national datasets and practices, at 30 September 2018, using multilevel mixed effects regression analyses (patients clustered within practices). Primary outcomes, considered to be measures of unmet need for primary care, were polypharmacy (≥ 65 years), HbA1c testing in adults with diabetes, childhood immunisations (6 months), ambulatory sensitive hospitalisations (0–14, 45–64 years) and emergency department attendances. Explanatory variables adjusted for patient and practice characteristics. Equity, by model of care, ethnicity and deprivation, was assumed if they showed no significant association with patient outcomes. Patient characteristics included: age, ethnicity, deprivation, multi-morbidity, first specialist assessments and practice continuity. Practice characteristics included: size, funding and doctor continuity. Clinical input (consultations and time with nurses and doctors) was considered a measure of practice response. Results: The study included 924 general practices with 4,491,964 enrolled patients. Traditional practices enrolled 73% of the population, but, on average, the proportion of Māori, Pacific and people living with material deprivation was low in any one Traditional practice. Patients with high health needs disproportionately enrolled in Māori, Pacific and Trust/NGO practices. There were multiple associations between models of care and patient health outcomes in fully adjusted regressions. No one model of care out-performed others across all outcomes. Patients with higher health need received more clinical input but this was insufficient to achieve equity in all outcomes. Being a Māori or Pacific patient, or living in material deprivation, across models of care, remained associated with poorer outcomes. Conclusions: Model-level associations with poor patient outcomes suggest inequity in measures that might be used to target investment in primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The establishment of a culturally diverse surgical workforce, largely on the basis of gender, has been highly promoted in Australasia in the last decade. Despite this, discussions of gender diversity in surgery have largely excluded Indigenous women. This study presents the experiences of wāhine Māori and Pasifika doctors in Aotearoa, who formed a surgical sisterhood to support them towards applying for advanced surgical training. Utilising mana wāhine and Masi methodologies, semi-structured interpersonal interviews were undertaken with five wāhine who formed the surgical sisterhood. Following transcription and analysis of all interviews, four key themes were identified. These were mana wāhine, unity, our why and change on the horizon. These themes illustrate the complex and varied experiences of wāhine Māori and Pasifika and how they have navigated their surgical pathways amidst multiple layers of discrimination towards being in a position to apply for advanced surgical training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To undertake an economic analysis of the Take Charge intervention as part of the Taking Charge after Stroke (TaCAS) study. Design: An open, parallel-group, randomised trial comparing active and control interventions with blinded outcome assessment Setting: Community. Participants: Adults (n = 400) discharged to community, non-institutional living following acute stroke. Interventions: The Take Charge intervention, a strengths based, self-directed rehabilitation intervention, in two doses (one or two sessions), and a control intervention (no Take Charge sessions). Measures: The cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) saved for the period between randomisation (always post hospital discharge) and 12 months following acute stroke. QALYs were calculated from the EuroQol-5D-5L. Costs of stroke-related and non-health care were obtained by questionnaire, hospital records and the New Zealand Ministry of Health. Results: One-year post hospital discharge cost of care was mean (95% CI) $US4706 (3758–6014) for the Take Charge intervention group and $6118 (4350–8005) for control, mean (95% CI) difference $ −1412 (−3553 to +729). Health utility scores were mean (95% CI) 0.75 (0.73–0.77) for Take Charge and 0.71 (0.67–0.75) for control, mean (95% CI) difference 0.04 (0.0–0.08). Cost per QALY gained for the Take Charge intervention was $US −35,296 (=£ −25,524, € −30,019). Sensitivity analyses confirm Take Charge is cost-effective, even at a very low willingness-to-pay threshold. With a threshold of $US5000 per QALY, the probability that Take Charge is cost-effective is 99%. Conclusion: Take Charge is cost-effective and probably cost saving. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]