Search

Objectives: Inequities in physical health outcomes exist for people with mental health and substance use conditions and for Indigenous populations (Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand). These inequities may be partly explained by poorer quality of physical healthcare services, including discrimination at systemic and individual levels. This study investigated the experiences of people with mental health and substance use conditions accessing physical healthcare and differences in service quality for non-Māori relative to Māori. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey of people with mental health and substance use conditions in New Zealand asked about four aspects of service quality in four healthcare settings: general practice, emergency department, hospital and pharmacy. The quality domains were: treated with respect; listened to; treated unfairly due to mental health and substance use conditions; mental health and substance use condition diagnoses distracting clinicians from physical healthcare (diagnostic and treatment overshadowing). Results: Across the four health services, pharmacy was rated highest for all quality measures and emergency department lowest. Participants rated general practice services highly for being treated with respect and listened to but reported relatively high levels of overshadowing in general practice, emergency department and hospital services. Experiences of unfair treatment were more common in emergency department and hospital than general practice and pharmacy. Compared to Māori, non-Māori reported higher levels of being treated with respect and listened to in most services and were more likely to report 'never' experiencing unfair treatment and overshadowing for all health services. Conclusion: Interventions to address discrimination and poor-quality health services to people with mental health and substance use conditions should be tailored to the physical healthcare setting. More needs to be done to address institutional racism in systems that privilege non-Māori. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bipolar disorder (BD) is a serious mental health condition that is clinically complex to monitor and manage. While best practice guidelines exist, they vary internationally lacking consensus. Indigenous peoples, including Māori in New Zealand, experience higher community rates of BD. While New Zealand practice guidelines recommend providing culturally responsive care to Māori, studies show that Māori do not receive best practice. This qualitative study aimed to share the evidence about patterns of health service use and Māori patient experiences with focus group participants involved in the design and delivery of BD services, to discuss and develop guidelines for best practice for Māori with BD and address areas of unmet need. Three focus groups were conducted with 22 participants involved in the delivery of services to Māori with BD across three sites. Willing participants were sent background information and three focus group questions framed to elicit priority solutions to improve clinical, structural and organisational features of mental health service delivery for Māori patients with BD and their whānau (family). The nominal group technique was used to synthesise responses, and then develop a prioritised list of proposed solutions. Results identified system-level changes required at the clinical, structural and organisational levels of healthcare. Findings further evidence the need for healthcare reform in New Zealand, to be responsive to Māori with BD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Research designed to increase knowledge about Māori with bipolar disorder is required to understand how health services support wellbeing and respond to identified levels of community need. This paper synthesises the expert critique of Māori patients with bipolar disorder and their whānau regarding the nuances of cultural competence and safety in clinical encounters with the health system. Methods: A qualitative Kaupapa Māori Research methodology was used. A total of 24 semi-structured interviews were completed with Māori patients with bipolar disorder and members of their whānau. Structural, descriptive and pattern coding was completed using an adapted cultural competence framework to organise and analyse the data. Results: Three themes were evident from participants' critique of clinical components of the health system. Theme 1 established that the efficacy of clinical care for bipolar disorder was dependent on Māori patients and whānau having clear pathways through care, and being able to access timely, consistent care from clinically and culturally competent staff. Theme 2 identified the influence of clinical culture in bipolar disorder services, embedded into care settings, expressed by staff, affecting the safety of clinical care for Māori. Theme 3 focused on the need for bipolar disorder services to prioritise clinical work with whānau, equip staff with skills to facilitate engagement and tailor care with resources to enhance whānau as well as patient wellbeing. Conclusion: The standard of clinical care for Māori with bipolar disorder in New Zealand does not align with practice guidelines, Māori models of health or clinical frameworks designed to inform treatment and address systemic barriers to equity. Research also needs to explore the role of structural and organisational features of the health system on Māori patient and whānau experiences of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]