Flourishing together: research protocol for developing methods to better include disabled people's knowledge in health policy development.

BACKGROUND: To positively impact the social determinants of health, disabled people need to contribute to policy planning and programme development. However, they report barriers to engaging meaningfully in consultation processes. Additionally, their recommendations may not be articulated in ways that policy planners can readily use. This gap contributes to health outcome inequities. Participatory co-production methods have the potential to improve policy responsiveness. This research will use innovative methods to generate tools for co-producing knowledge in health-related policy areas, empowering disabled people to articulate experience, expertise and insights promoting equitable health policy and programme development within Aotearoa New Zealand. To develop these methods, as an exemplar, we will partner with both tangata whaikaha Maori and disabled people to co-produce policy recommendations around housing and home (kainga)-developing a nuanced understanding of the contexts in which disabled people can access and maintain kainga meeting their needs and aspirations. METHODS: Participatory co-production methods with disabled people, embedded within a realist methodological approach, will develop theories on how best to co-produce and effectively articulate knowledge to address equitable health-related policy and programme development-considering what works for whom under what conditions. Theory-building workshops (Phase 1) and qualitative surveys (Phase 2) will explore contexts and resources (i.e., at individual, social and environmental levels) supporting them to access and maintain kainga that best meets their needs and aspirations. In Phase 3, a realist review with embedded co-production workshops will synthesise evidence and co-produce knowledge from published literature and non-published reports. Finally, in Phase 4, co-produced knowledge from all phases will be synthesised to develop two key research outputs: housing policy recommendations and innovative co-production methods and tools empowering disabled people to create, synthesise and articulate knowledge to planners of health-related policy. DISCUSSION: This research will develop participatory co-production methods and tools to support future creation, synthesis and articulation of the knowledge and experiences of disabled people, contributing to policies that positively impact their social determinants of health.

Consequences of barriers to primary health care for children in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Inequities in the provision of accessible primary health care contribute to poor health outcomes and health inequity. This study evaluated inequities in the prevalence and consequences of barriers that children face in seeing a general practitioner (GP) in Aotearoa New Zealand. We analysed data on 5,947 children from the Growing Up in New Zealand longitudinal study cohort on barriers to seeing a GP in the previous year, reported by mothers when their children were aged 24 months and 54 months (in 2011/12 and 2013/14 respectively); and maternal-reported hospitalisations in the year prior to age 54 months. We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for consequences of these barriers. Overall, 4.7% (n = 279) of children experienced barriers to seeing a GP in the year to 24 months and 5.5% (n = 325) in the year to 54 months. At each age, and for each specific barrier studied, barriers were more prevalent among Maori (the indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand), and among Pacific, compared to New Zealand European, children. Children facing barriers in the year to age 24 months were twice as likely to be hospitalised in the year to 54 months (OR 2.18, 95%CI: 1.38 to 3.44). When this relationship was analysed by ethnicity, the association was strongest for Maori (OR: 2.92, 95%CI: 1.60 to 5.30), less strong for Pacific (OR 2.01, 95%CI: 0.92 to 4.37) and not present for New Zealand European (OR 1.27, 95%CI 0.39 to 4.12) families. Barriers that children face to seeing a GP have social and cost implications for families and the health system. Changes to the health system, and future health policy, must align with the New Zealand government's obligations under Te Tiriti o [The Treaty of] Waitangi, to ensure that health equity becomes a reality for Maori.

Equity in access to zero-fees and low-cost Primary Health Care in Aotearoa New Zealand: Results from repeated waves of the New Zealand Health Survey, 1996-2016.

Primary Health Care in Aotearoa New Zealand is mainly funded through capitation-based funding to general practices, supplemented by a user co-payment. Funding is designed in part to keep the costs of care low for key groups in the population who have higher health needs. We investigated changes in the socio-demographic determinants of no-cost and low-cost access to Primary Health Care using data from sequential waves of the New Zealand Health Survey (1996/97-2016/17). Fees paid were self-reported and inflated using CPI-adjustment to the value of the 2018NZD. Over the 20-year study period, there was an increase in the population accessing low-cost care. Access to low-cost care was particularly high for Pacific people, but also higher for Maori and Asian people compared to Other/New Zealand European ethnicities. Area-level deprivation was a stronger predictor of access to low-cost care for non-Maori than for Maori. Although Maori were more likely than non-Maori to access low-cost care at all levels of deprivation, this was less evident in more deprived compared to more affluent areas. Given ongoing reported inequity for Maori being less able to afford primary health care, we suggest that future policies to improve access should be fully aligned with the articles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and should focus on equity.

Taking the pulse of the health services research community: a cross-sectional survey of research impact, barriers and support.

Objective This study reports on the characteristics of individuals conducting health service research (HSR) in Australia and New Zealand, the perceived accessibility of resources for HSR, the self-reported impact of HSR projects and perceived barriers to conducting HSR. Methods A sampling frame was compiled from funding announcements, trial registers and HSR organisation membership. Listed researchers were invited to complete online surveys. Close-ended survey items were analysed using basic descriptive statistics. Goodness of fit tests determined potential associations between researcher affiliation and access to resources for HSR. Open-ended survey items were analysed using thematic analysis. Results In all, 424 researchers participated in the study (22% response rate). Respondents held roles as health service researchers (76%), educators (34%) and health professionals (19%). Most were employed by a university (64%), and 57% held a permanent contract. Although 63% reported network support for HSR, smaller proportions reported executive (48%) or financial (26%) support. The least accessible resources were economists (52%), consumers (49%) and practice change experts (34%); researchers affiliated with health services were less likely to report access to statisticians (P<0.001), economists (P<0.001), librarians (P=0.02) and practice change experts (P=0.02) than university-affiliated researchers. Common impacts included conference presentations (94%), publication of peer-reviewed articles (87%) and health professional benefits (77%). Qualitative data emphasised barriers such as embedding research culture within services and engaging with policy makers. Conclusions The data highlight opportunities to sustain the HSR community through dedicated funding, improved access to methodological expertise and greater engagement with end-users. What is known about the topic? HSR faces several challenges, such as inequitable funding allocation and difficulties in quantifying the effects of HSR on changing health policy or practice. What does this paper add? Despite a vibrant and experienced HSR community, this study highlights some key barriers to realising a greater effect on the health and well-being of Australian and New Zealand communities through HSR. These barriers include limited financial resources, methodological expertise, organisational support and opportunities to engage with potential collaborators. What are the implications for practitioners? Funding is required to develop HSR infrastructure, support collaboration between health services and universities and combine knowledge of the system with research experience and expertise. Formal training programs for health service staff and researchers, from short courses to PhD programs, will support broader interest and involvement in HSR.