Search

Background: Given the persistence of Indigenous health inequities across national contexts, many countries have adopted strategies to improve the health of Indigenous peoples. Governmental recognition of the unique health needs of Indigenous populations is necessary for the development of targeted programs and policies to achieve universal health coverage. At the same time, the participation of Indigenous peoples in decision-making and program and policy design helps to ensure that barriers to health services are appropriately addressed and promotes the rights of Indigenous peoples to self-determination. Due to similar patterns of Indigenous health and health determinants across borders, there have been calls for greater global collaboration in this field. However, most international studies on Indigenous health policy link Anglo-settler democracies (Canada, Australia, Aotearoa/New Zealand and the United States), despite these countries representing a small fraction of the world's Indigenous people. Aim: This paper examines national-level policy in Australia, Brazil, Chile and New Zealand in relation to governmental recognition of differential Indigenous health needs and engagement with Indigenous peoples in health. The paper aims to examine how Indigenous health needs and engagement are addressed in national policy frameworks within each of the countries in order to contribute to the understanding of how to develop pro-equity policies within national health care systems. Methods: For each country, a review was undertaken of national policies and legislation to support engagement with, and participation of, Indigenous peoples in the identification of their health needs, development of programs and policies to address these needs and which demonstrate governmental recognition of differential Indigenous health needs. Government websites were searched as well as the following databases: Google, OpenGrey, CAB Direct, PubMed, Web of Science and WorldCat. Findings: Each of the four countries have adopted international agreements regarding the engagement of Indigenous peoples in health. However, there is significant variation in the extent to which the principles laid out in these agreements are reflected in national policy, legislation and practice. Brazil and New Zealand both have established national policies to facilitate engagement. In contrast, national policy to enable engagement is relatively lacking in Australia and Chile. Australia, Brazil and New Zealand each have significant initiatives and policy structures in place to address Indigenous health. However, in Brazil this is not necessarily reflected in practice and although New Zealand has national policies these have been recently reported as insufficient and, in fact, may be contributing to health inequity for Māori. In comparison to the other three countries, Chile has relatively few national initiatives or policies in place to support Indigenous engagement or recognise the distinct health needs of Indigenous communities. Conclusions: The adoption of international policy frameworks forms an important step in ensuring that Indigenous peoples are able to participate in the formation and implementation of health policy and programs. However, without the relevant principles being reflected in national legislature, international agreements hold little weight. At the same time, while a national legislative framework facilitates the engagement of Indigenous peoples, such policy may not necessarily translate into practice. Developing multi-level approaches that improve cohesion between international policy, national policy and practice in Indigenous engagement in health is therefore vital. Given that each of the four countries demonstrate strengths and weaknesses across this causal chain, cross-country policy examination provides guidance on strengthening these links. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Community-based primary health care describes a model of service provision that is oriented to the population health needs and wants of service users and communities, and has particular relevance to supporting the growing proportion of the population with multiple chronic conditions. Internationally, aspirations for community-based primary health care have stimulated local initiatives and influenced the design of policy solutions. However, the ways in which these ideas and influences find their way into policy and practice is strongly mediated by policy settings and institutional legacies of particular jurisdictions. This paper seeks to compare the key institutional and policy features of Ontario, Québec and New Zealand that shape the 'space available' for models of community-based primary health care to take root and develop. Our analysis suggests that two key conditions are the integration of relevant health and social sector organisations, and the range of policy levers that are available and used by governments. New Zealand has the most favourable conditions, and Ontario the least favourable. All jurisdictions, however, share a crucial barrier, namely the 'barbed-wire fence' that separates funding of medical and 'non-medical' primary care services, and the clear interests primary care doctors have in maintaining this fence. Moves in the direction of system-wide community-based primary health care require a gradual dismantling of this fence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Syndemics have been conceived of as a way of approaching the multiple levels of causation and linkage between two or more health conditions and their socio-political environment. Our aim in this paper is to use the established literature on syndemic relationships to examine possible interactions involving tuberculosis. In particular, we explore the linkages between tuberculosis and diabetes mellitus which, we argue, is of particular relevance to Pacific populations resident in New Zealand. Reviewing current literature, we identify multiple synergies between these two diseases whereby their mutual presence has an amplified negative effect. Both conditions interact with other practices and aspects of the broader political economic context such as smoking, housing, and nutrition. A syndemic approach to Pacific health is argued as an effective way to address research, policy and prevention questions. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This paper reviews the development of health impact assessment (HIA) in New Zealand to reveal factors which inhibited its effective institutionalisation until recently. It considers how differing views of HIA have affected the institutionalisation process, and assesses the longer-term prospects for HIA in policy- and project-level assessments. There is lack of a clear statutory mandate for considering health impacts under the Resource Management Act, although HIA and closely related health risk assessments have been carried out under other legislation, including the Biosecurity Act. Consequently, different understandings of the nature and purpose of HIA have developed, associated with different practitioner communities, often operating in isolation from other practitioners and the wider impact assessment community. The renewed effort to mobilise HIA has emphasised policy-level application in central government; the Ministry for Health now has an HIA Unit, and statutory recognition of the process is promised in the new Public Health Act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The history of infant mortality inequities among Māori in New Zealand provides a remarkable case study for understanding the shortcomings of policy which fails to consider the differential risks associated with disadvantaged groups. Specifically, the failure of the initial 1991 reform in addressing Māori infant health, followed by the relative success of post-1994 policy, demonstrate that disadvantaged populations carry differential social risks which require adjusting policy accordingly. Literature on these policies show that differential risks may include disparities in representation, access to resources, socioeconomic status, and racism. The consideration of differential risks is important in analyzing the underlying causes of inequities and social policy deficiencies. Aim: To describe and illustrate the need for policy addressing inequities to consider the differential risks associated with disadvantaged groups through an analysis of New Zealand's Māori infant mortality policy progression. Methods: The article is a commentary on a series of policies aimed at reducing infant mortality in New Zealand. It analyses three policies and how their differences are linked to the corresponding trends in equity between Māori and non-Māori populations. Findings: The progression of Māori infant mortality policy clearly demonstrates that equitable social policy must be culturally sensitive and inclusive towards disadvantaged groups, as well as willing to adapt to changing circumstances and shortcomings of current policy. Prior to 1994, health policy which did not account for the differential risks of Māori populations caused inequities in infant mortality to increase, despite infant mortality decreasing on a national level. After policy was adjusted to account for Māori-specific risks in 1994, infant mortality inequities significantly declined. A comprehensive analysis of these policies shows that the consideration of differential risks is highly related to a decrease in corresponding inequities. Conclusions: As New Zealand, and other countries facing inequities such as the United States and Australia, move forward in constructing policy, they would do well to consider the lessons of how New Zealand policy changed the frequency of infant mortality in Māori populations. The study shows that the consideration of differential risks associated with disadvantaged groups is necessary for policy to successfully address inequities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Issues: Non-medical cannabis policies are changing, including towards legalisation-with-regulation frameworks. New Zealand will hold a public referendum on cannabis legalisation in 2020. We reviewed data on cannabis use and health/social harms; policy reform options; experiences with and outcomes of reforms elsewhere; and other relevant considerations towards informing policy choices in the upcoming referendum.Approach: Relevant epidemiological, health, social, criminal justice and policy studies and data were identified and comprehensively reviewed.Key Findings: Cannabis use is common (including in New Zealand) and associated with risks for health and social harms, mainly concentrated in young users; key harms are attributable to criminalisation. 'Decriminalisation' reforms have produced ambivalent results. Existing cannabis legalisation frameworks vary considerably in main parameters. Legalisation offers some distinct advantages, for example regulated use, products and user education, yet outcomes depend on essential regulation parameters, including commercialisation, and policy ecologies. While major changes in use are not observed, legalisation experiences are inconclusive to date, including mixed health and social outcomes, with select harms increasing and resilient illegal markets. It is unclear whether legalisation reduces cannabis exposure or social harms (e.g. from enforcement) for youth.Implications/conclusions: No conclusive overall evidence on the outcomes of legalisation elsewhere exists, nor is evidence easily transferable to other settings. Legalisation offers direct social justice benefits for adults, yet overall public health impacts are uncertain. Legalisation may not categorically improve health or social outcomes for youth. Legalisation remains a well-intended, while experimental policy option towards more measured and sensible cannabis control and overall greater policy coherence, requiring close monitoring and possible adjustments depending on setting-specific outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]