Search

Abstract Introduction In all countries people experience different social circumstances that result in avoidable differences in health. In New Zealand, Māori, Pacific peoples, and those with lower socioeconomic status experience higher levels of chronic illness, which is the leading cause of mortality, morbidity and inequitable health outcomes. Whilst the health system can enable a fairer distribution of good health, limited national data is available to measure health equity. Therefore, we sought to find out whether health services in New Zealand were equitable by measuring the level of development of components of chronic care management systems across district health boards. Variation in provision by geography, condition or ethnicity can be interpreted as inequitable. Methods A national survey of district health boards (DHBs) was undertaken on macro approaches to chronic condition management with detail on cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, stroke and diabetes. Additional data from expert informant interviews on program reach and the cultural needs of Māori and Pacific peoples was sought. Survey data were analyzed on dimensions of health equity relevant to strategic planning and program delivery. Results are presented as descriptive statistics and free text. Interviews were transcribed and NVivo 8 software supported a general inductive approach to identify common themes. Results Survey responses were received from the majority of DHBs (15/21), some PHOs (21/84) and 31 expert informants. Measuring, monitoring and targeting equity is not systematically undertaken. The Health Equity Assessment Tool is used in strategic planning but not in decisions about implementing or monitoring disease programs. Variable implementation of evidence-based practices in disease management and multiple funding streams made program implementation difficult. Equity for Māori is embedded in policy, this is not so for other ethnic groups or by geography. Populations that conventional practitioners find hard to reach, despite recognized needs, are often underserved. Nurses and community health workers carried a disproportionate burden of care. Cultural and diversity training is not a condition of employment. Conclusions There is a struggle to put equity principles into practice, indicating will without enactment. Equity is not addressed systematically below strategic levels and equity does not shape funding decisions, program development, implementation and monitoring. Equity is not incentivized although examples of exceptional practice, driven by individuals, are evident across New Zealand.

Background: The impact of long‐term conditions is the "healthcare equivalent to climate change." People with long‐term conditions often feel they are a problem, a burden to themselves, their family and friends. Providers struggle to support patients to self‐manage. The Practical Reviews in Self‐Management Support (PRISMS) taxonomy lists what provider actions might support patient self‐management. Objective: To offer providers advice on how to support patient self‐management. Design: Semi‐structured interviews with 40 patient‐participants. Setting and participants: Three case studies of primary health‐care organizations in New Zealand and Canada serving diverse populations. Participants were older adults with long‐term conditions who needed support to live in the community. Main outcome measures: Qualitative description to classify patient narratives of self‐management support according to the PRISMS taxonomy with thematic analysis to explore how support was acceptable and effective. Results: Patients identified a relationship‐in‐action as the mechanism, the how by which providers supported them to self‐manage. When providers acted upon knowledge of patient lives and priorities, these patients were often willing to try activities or medications they had resisted in the past. Effective self‐management support saw PRISMS components delivered in patient‐specific combinations by individual providers or teams. Discussion and conclusions: Providers who establish relationships with patients can support them to self‐manage and improve health outcomes. Delivery of taxonomy components, in the absence of a relationship, is unlikely to be either acceptable or effective. Providers need to be aware that social determinants of health can constrain patients' options to self‐manage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]