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]