Health equity in the New Zealand health care system: A national survey

  • N.F. S
  • T.W. K
  • M.J. C
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Introduction. In all countries people experience different social circumstances that result in avoidable differences in health. In New Zealand, Mori, 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 Mori 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 Mori 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. © 2011Sheridan et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

N.F., S., T.W., K., M.J., C., F., M., P.A., B., M.A., B., … R., L. (2011). Health equity in the New Zealand health care system: A national survey. International Journal for Equity in Health. N.F. Sheridan, School of Nursing, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. E-mail: n.sheridan@auckland.ac.nz: BioMed Central Ltd. (Floor 6, 236 Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1X 8HB, United Kingdom). Retrieved from http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=emed10&NEWS=N&AN=2011631832

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free