Mismatches between health service delivery and community expectations in the provision of secondary prophylaxis for rheumatic fever in New Zealand.
Adolescent
Attitude to Health
/ ethnology
Delivery of Health Care
/ methods
Female
Focus Groups
Health Services Accessibility
/ statistics & numerical data
Health Services, Indigenous
/ organization & administration
Humans
Interviews as Topic
Male
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
/ psychology
New Zealand
/ epidemiology
Qualitative Research
Rheumatic Fever
/ diagnosis
Rheumatic Heart Disease
/ diagnosis
Secondary Prevention
Māori health
Pacific health
health service delivery
rheumatic fever recurrence
rheumatic heart disease
Journal
Australian and New Zealand journal of public health
ISSN: 1753-6405
Titre abrégé: Aust N Z J Public Health
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9611095
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2019
Jun 2019
Historique:
received:
01
10
2018
revised:
01
04
2018
accepted:
01
02
2019
pubmed:
26
3
2019
medline:
6
8
2019
entrez:
26
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Rheumatic fever (RF) recurrence prevention requires secondary prophylaxis for at least ten years. However, recurrences of rheumatic fever (RRF) persist disproportionately affecting Māori and Pacific youth. Reasons for recurrence rates are not well understood and commonly attributed to patient non-adherence. This research explored Māori and Pacific family experiences of RRF to better understand barriers to accessing secondary prophylaxis to inform health service improvements. Participants were Māori and Pacific patients who had RRF or unexpected rheumatic heart disease and their family; and health professionals working in RF contexts. Kaupapa Māori, Talanga and Kakala Pacific qualitative methodologies were employed. Data were thematically analysed using a general inductive approach. Data collection included 38 interviews with patients and families (n=80), six focus group interviews and nine interviews with health providers (n=33) from seven geographic regions. Three key themes were identified where mismatches occurred between services and community needs: 1. Model of delivery; 2. Interpersonal approaches to care; and 3. Adolescent care. Conclusions and Public health implications: Successful RRF prevention requires interventions to address structural causes of inequity, appropriate clinical guidelines and quality health services. Service-delivery models should provide regular prophylaxis in an accessible manner through culturally-safe, community-based, age-appropriate care.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30908804
doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12890
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
294-299Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors.