Search

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]

Background: Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are leading causes of mortality and morbidity among Indigenous people in New Zealand, Australia and Canada and are a major driver of the inequities in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in these countries. Evidence-based pharmaceutical management of CVD can significantly reduce mortality and morbidity for persons diagnosed with CVD or for those at intermediate or high risk of CVD. Health literacy has been identified as a major barrier in the communication and implementation of appropriate pharmaceutical management plans for CVD. Addressing health literacy is particularly relevant in Indigenous populations where there are unique health and adult literacy challenges. Methods/design: This study will examine the effect of a customized, structured CVD medication programme, delivered by health professionals, on the health literacy of Indigenous people with, or at risk, of CVD. Primary outcomes are patient’s knowledge about CVD medications; secondary outcomes examine changes in health literacy skills and practices. The study will employ a multi-site pre-post design with multiple measurement points to assess intervention efficacy. Participants will be recruited from four Indigenous primary care services in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Three educational sessions will be delivered over four weeks. A tablet application will support the education sessions and produce a customized pill card for each participant. Participants will be provided with written information about CVD medications. Medication knowledge scores, and specific health literacy skills and practices will be assessed before and after the three sessions. Statistical analyses will identify significant changes in outcomes over each session, and from the pre-session one to post-session three time points. Discussion: This study will make an important contribution to understanding the effect of a structured primary care-based intervention on CVD health literacy in Indigenous populations. The study also illustrates the incorporation of Indigenous health research principles and processes in clinical trials and provides insights that may be useful in other contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Māori are disproportionately affected by cardiovascular disease (CVD), which is the main reason for the eight year difference in life expectancy between Māori and non-Māori. The primary care-based IMPACT (IMProving Adherence using Combination Therapy) trial evaluates whether fixed dose combination therapy (a "polypill") improves adherence to guideline-based therapy compared with current care among people at high risk of CVD. Interventions shown in trials to be effective do not necessarily reduce ethnic disparities, and may in fact widen them. Indigenous populations with poorer health outcomes are often under-represented in trials so the effect of interventions cannot be assessed for them, specifically. Therefore, the IMPACT trial aimed to recruit as many Māori as non-Māori to assess the consistency of the effect of the polypill. This paper describes the methods and results of the recruitment strategy used to achieve this. Methods: Experienced Māori researchers were involved in trial governance throughout trial development and conduct. The trial Steering Committee included leading Māori researchers and was committed to equal recruitment of Māori and non-Māori. Additional funding and Māori research nurses were sought to allow home-based assessment, establishment of the relationship between research nurse and participant, more family involvement prior to enrollment, continuity of the research nurse-participant relationship, and acknowledgement of other Māori culturally important procedures, interactions, language and manners. Primary care practices with high enrollment of Māori were targeted, with over-sampling of potentially eligible Māori patients, lower thresholds for screening of Māori and 6 months continued Māori recruitment after non-Māori recruitment had finished. Results: A total of 257 Māori and 256 non-Māori participants were randomized. Four Māori and eight non-Māori participants were randomized per research nurse per month. Potentially eligible Māori were more likely than non-Māori to proceed to subsequent stages of recruitment. Differences between randomized Māori and non-Māori were evident (e.g. Maori were less likely to have established coronary artery disease). Conclusions: Recruitment of equal numbers of indigenous and non-indigenous participants is possible if it is prioritised, adequately resourced and self-determination is supported. Trial registration: The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12606000067572). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]