Search

Background: People experiencing psychosis are at greater risk of physical health conditions and premature mortality. It is likely that Indigenous Māori youth, who experience additional systemic inequities caused by settler-colonisation, face even greater physical health and mortality risks following a diagnosis of first-episode psychosis. Objective: Compare Māori and non-Māori for risk of hospitalisation and mortality for up to 15 years following first-episode psychosis diagnosis. Methods: A cohort (N = 14,122) of young people (16–24 years) with first-episode psychosis diagnosis between 2001 and 2019 were identified. Using crude Kaplan–Meier and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models, Māori (n = 5211) and non-Māori (n = 8911) were compared on hospitalisation and mortality outcomes for up to 15 years. Results: In the 15 years following first-episode psychosis diagnosis, Māori had higher adjusted risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio = 1.21, 95% confidence interval = [1.01, 1.45]), hospitalisation with diabetes (hazard ratio = 1.44, 95% confidence interval = [1.15, 1.79]), injury/poisoning (hazard ratio = 1.11, 95% confidence interval = [1.05, 1.16]), general physical health conditions (hazard ratio = 1.07, 95% confidence interval = [1.02, 1.13]) and also appeared to be at greater risk of cardiovascular hospitalisations (hazard ratio = 1.34, 95% confidence interval = [0.97, 1.86]). Kaplan–Meier plots show hospitalisation and mortality inequities emerging approximately 4–7 years following first-episode psychosis diagnosis. Conclusions: Māori are at greater risk for hospitalisation and premature mortality outcomes following first-episode psychosis. Early screening and intervention, facilitated by culturally safe health service delivery, is needed to target these inequities early. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the importance of implementability in clinical trial planning, design, and reporting to optimize the impact of late-phase trials. It emphasizes the need for trials to be designed for implementability to improve practice, health systems, and policy. Key considerations include trial design, conduct, and reporting, as well as the involvement of end users in the process. The article also highlights the role of clinical trial networks in supporting quality consumer and community involvement and facilitating the implementation of trial outcomes. [Extracted from the article]

Introduction. From a coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic perspective, Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) rural residents formed an at-risk population, and disparities between rural and urban COVID-19 vaccination coverage have been found. Aim. To gain insight into factors contributing to the urban-rural COVID-19 vaccination disparity by exploring NZ rural health providers' experiences of the vaccine rollout and pandemic response in rural Māori and Pasifika communities. Methods. Rural health providers at four sites participated in individual or focus group semi-structured interviews exploring their views of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. Thematic analysis was undertaken using a framework-guided rapid analysis method. Results. Twenty interviews with 42 participants were conducted. Five themes were identified: Pre COVID-19 rural situation, fragile yet resilient; Centrally imposed structures, policies and solutions - urban-centric and Pakehā focused; Multiple logistical challenges - poor/no consideration of rural context in planning stages resulting in wasted resource and time; Taking ownership - rural providers found geographically tailored, culturally anchored and locally driven solutions; Future directions - sustained investment in rural health services, including funding long-term integrated (rather than 'by activity') health services, would ensure success in future vaccine rollouts and other health initiatives for rural communities. Discussion. In providing rural health provider perspectives from rural areas serving Māori and Pasifika communities during the NZ COVID-19 vaccine rollout, the importance of the rural context is highlighted. Findings provide a platform on which to build further research regarding models of rural health care to ensure services are designed for rural NZ contexts and capable of meeting the needs of diverse rural communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Aotearoa New Zealand, significant health inequities persist between Māori (the Indigenous people) and non-Māori. These ethnic-based inequities are intrinsically linked to Aotearoa New Zealand's colonial and colonising racist history. Decolonising health systems imbued with racist ideology, and mitigating inequities, is foundational to improving the health outcomes of Māori and Indigenous peoples worldwide. Social justice and equity are internationally recognised core values and functions of the discipline of hauora ā iwi/public health and, more recently, recognised as acting against racism. Tertiary institutions in Aotearoa New Zealand that offer hauora ā iwi/public health as a programme of study have an obligation to improve Māori health and reduce inequities through their teaching. This project aimed to provide a set of core Māori hauora ā iwi/public health competencies, which can be used to support Indigenous equity-focused, anti-racist hauora ā iwi/public health curricula for tertiary institutions, locally and internationally. This paper reports the process of developing a novel set of core Māori hauora ā iwi/public health competencies (as a framework that can be delivered by both Māori and non-Māori/non-Indigenous health academics), designed and set within their international context of educating for Indigenous health equity as well as the Aotearoa New Zealand hauora ā iwi/public health context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health intervention implementation in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ), as in many countries globally, usually varies by ethnicity. Māori (the Indigenous peoples of Aotearoa) and Pacific peoples are less likely to receive interventions than other ethnic groups, despite experiencing persistent health inequities. This study aimed to develop an equity-focused implementation framework, appropriate for the Aotearoa NZ context, to support the planning and delivery of equitable implementation pathways for health interventions, with the intention of achieving equitable outcomes for Māori, as well as people originating from the Pacific Islands. Methods: A scoping review of the literature to identify existing equity-focused implementation theories, models and frameworks was undertaken. One of these, the Equity-based framework for Implementation Research (EquIR), was selected for adaptation. The adaptation process was undertaken in collaboration with the project's Māori and consumer advisory groups and informed by the expertise of local health equity researchers and stakeholders, as well as the international implementation science literature. Results: The adapted framework's foundation is the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the written agreement between Māori rangatira (chiefs) and the British Crown), and its focus is whānau (extended family)-centred implementation that meets the health and wellbeing aspirations, priorities and needs of whānau. The implementation pathway comprises four main steps: implementation planning, pathway design, monitoring, and outcomes and evaluation, all with an equity focus. The pathway is underpinned by the core constructs of equitable implementation in Aotearoa NZ: collaborative design, anti-racism, Māori and priority population expertise, cultural safety and values-based. Additionally, the contextual factors impacting implementation, i.e. the social, economic, commercial and political determinants of health, are included. Conclusions: The framework presented in this study is the first equity-focused process-type implementation framework to be adapted for the Aotearoa NZ context. This framework is intended to support and facilitate equity-focused implementation research and health intervention implementation by mainstream health services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Children of people who smoke are more likely to take up smoking themselves. In Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ), adolescent smoking declined dramatically between 2000 and 2016 despite limited change in parental smoking, demonstrating that the cycle can be broken. Aims and Methods This study aimed to identify modifiable factors associated with never smoking in Year 10 students (14–15 years) who had at least one caregiver who smoked. We used data from the Youth Insights Survey (2016 and 2018, pooled, N  = 5,422) and identified students with at least one caregiver (mother, father, grandparent, other caregiver) who smoked (N  = 2,205). To investigate modifiable factors potentially associated with nonsmoking we used logistic regression with marginally adjusted prevalence estimates. Results Overall, 41% of students had at least one caregiver who smoked. In this group, the majority (65%) had never smoked themselves. After adjustment, never-smoking was more prevalent among students attending low-deprivation (more affluent) schools (73% had never smoked) compared to high-deprivation schools (44%); students not exposed to others' smoking inside the home (72%) or in cars (70%) in the past week compared to those exposed (59% and 51%, respectively); and students whose parents would be upset if they were caught smoking (68% vs 49% for those whose parents would not be upset), or who had high self-esteem (69% vs 55% for those with low self-esteem). Conclusions Modifiable factors independently associated with non-smoking in adolescents with caregiver(s) who smoked were: nonexposure to smoking inside the home and in cars, parental expectations of nonsmoking, and high self-esteem. Implications Even in countries like NZ with relatively low adult smoking rates, children's exposure to caregiver smoking may be prevalent, particularly in structurally disadvantaged populations. This study suggests that action to promote smokefree homes and cars, build high self-esteem in young people, and communicate expectations of non-smoking are likely to help children of people who smoke to remain nonsmokers. A comprehensive approach that also addresses "upstream" factors (eg, socioeconomic deprivation) and underlying causes of structural inequity (eg, institutional racism) is needed. Such policy and community action may help to break intergenerational cycles of tobacco use and health inequity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]