Search

Objectives: To determine whether exempting people (with high health needs and living in areas of high deprivation) from a $5 prescription charge reduces hospital use. Design: Two-group parallel prospective randomised controlled trial. Setting: People living in the community in various regions of New Zealand. Participants: One thousand sixty one people who lived in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation, and either took medicines for diabetes, took antipsychotic medicines, or had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Of the 1053 who completed the study, just under half (49%) were Māori. Interventions: Participants were individually randomized (1–1 ratio) to either be exempted from the standard $5 charge per prescription item for one year (2020-2021) (n = 591) or usual care (n = 469). Those in the intervention group did not pay the standard NZ$5 charge, and pharmacies billed the study for these. Participants continued to pay any other costs for prescription medicines. Those in the control group continued to pay all prescription charges for the year although they may have received one-off assistance from other agencies. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was length of stay (hospital bed-days). Secondary outcomes presented in this paper included: all-cause hospitalisations, hospitalisations for diabetes/mental health problems/COPD, deaths, and emergency department visits. Results: The trial was under-powered because the recruitment target was not met. There was no statistically significant reduction in the primary outcome, hospital bed-days (IRR = 0.68, CI: 0.54 to 1.05). Participants in the intervention group were significantly less likely to be hospitalised during the study year than those in the control group (OR = 0.70, CI: 0.54 to 0.90). There were statistically significant reductions in the number of hospital admissions for mental health problems (IRR = 0.39, CI: 0.17 to 0.92), the number of admissions for COPD (IRR = 0.37, CI: 0.16 to 0.85), and length of stay for COPD (IRR 0.20, CI: 0.07 to 0.60). Apart from all-cause mortality and diabetes length of stay, all measures were better for the intervention group than the control group. Conclusions: Eliminating a small co-payment appears to have had a substantial effect on patients' risk of being hospitalised. Given the small amount of revenue gathered from the charges, and the comparative large costs of hospitalisations, the results suggest that these charges are likely to increase the overall cost of healthcare, as well as exacerbate ethnic inequalities. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12618001486213 registered on 04/09/2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To determine whether exempting people (with high health needs and living in areas of high deprivation) from a $5 prescription charge reduces hospital use. Design: Two-group parallel prospective randomised controlled trial. Setting: People living in the community in various regions of New Zealand. Participants: One thousand sixty one people who lived in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation, and either took medicines for diabetes, took antipsychotic medicines, or had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Of the 1053 who completed the study, just under half (49%) were Māori. Interventions: Participants were individually randomized (1–1 ratio) to either be exempted from the standard $5 charge per prescription item for one year (2020-2021) (n = 591) or usual care (n = 469). Those in the intervention group did not pay the standard NZ$5 charge, and pharmacies billed the study for these. Participants continued to pay any other costs for prescription medicines. Those in the control group continued to pay all prescription charges for the year although they may have received one-off assistance from other agencies. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was length of stay (hospital bed-days). Secondary outcomes presented in this paper included: all-cause hospitalisations, hospitalisations for diabetes/mental health problems/COPD, deaths, and emergency department visits. Results: The trial was under-powered because the recruitment target was not met. There was no statistically significant reduction in the primary outcome, hospital bed-days (IRR = 0.68, CI: 0.54 to 1.05). Participants in the intervention group were significantly less likely to be hospitalised during the study year than those in the control group (OR = 0.70, CI: 0.54 to 0.90). There were statistically significant reductions in the number of hospital admissions for mental health problems (IRR = 0.39, CI: 0.17 to 0.92), the number of admissions for COPD (IRR = 0.37, CI: 0.16 to 0.85), and length of stay for COPD (IRR 0.20, CI: 0.07 to 0.60). Apart from all-cause mortality and diabetes length of stay, all measures were better for the intervention group than the control group. Conclusions: Eliminating a small co-payment appears to have had a substantial effect on patients' risk of being hospitalised. Given the small amount of revenue gathered from the charges, and the comparative large costs of hospitalisations, the results suggest that these charges are likely to increase the overall cost of healthcare, as well as exacerbate ethnic inequalities. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12618001486213 registered on 04/09/2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To determine whether exempting people (with high health needs and living in areas of high deprivation) from a $5 prescription charge reduces hospital use. Design: Two-group parallel prospective randomised controlled trial. Setting: People living in the community in various regions of New Zealand. Participants: One thousand sixty one people who lived in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation, and either took medicines for diabetes, took antipsychotic medicines, or had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Of the 1053 who completed the study, just under half (49%) were Māori. Interventions: Participants were individually randomized (1–1 ratio) to either be exempted from the standard $5 charge per prescription item for one year (2019–2020) (n = 591) or usual care (n = 469). Those in the intervention group did not pay the standard NZ$5 charge, and pharmacies billed the study for these. Participants continued to pay any other costs for prescription medicines. Those in the control group continued to pay all prescription charges for the year although they may have received one-off assistance from other agencies. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was length of stay (hospital bed-days). Secondary outcomes presented in this paper included: all-cause hospitalisations, hospitalisations for diabetes/mental health problems/COPD, deaths, and emergency department visits. Results: The trial was under-powered because the recruitment target was not met. There was no statistically significant reduction in the primary outcome, hospital bed-days (IRR = 0.68, CI: 0.54 to 1.05). Participants in the intervention group were significantly less likely to be hospitalised during the study year than those in the control group (OR = 0.70, CI: 0.54 to 0.90). There were statistically significant reductions in the number of hospital admissions for mental health problems (IRR = 0.39, CI: 0.17 to 0.92), the number of admissions for COPD (IRR = 0.37, CI: 0.16 to 0.85), and length of stay for COPD (IRR 0.20, CI: 0.07 to 0.60). Apart from all-cause mortality and diabetes length of stay, all measures were better for the intervention group than the control group. Conclusions: Eliminating a small co-payment appears to have had a substantial effect on patients' risk of being hospitalised. Given the small amount of revenue gathered from the charges, and the comparative large costs of hospitalisations, the results suggest that these charges are likely to increase the overall cost of healthcare, as well as exacerbate ethnic inequalities. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12618001486213 registered on 04/09/2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Although antibiotic use in the community is a significant contributor to resistance, little is known about social patterns of use. This study aimed to explore the use of antibiotics by age, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status and rurality. Methods Data were obtained on all medicines dispensed to ambulatory patients in one isolated town for a year, and data on antibiotics are presented in this paper. Demographic details were obtained from pharmacy records or by matching to a national patient dataset. Results During the study year, 51% of the population received a prescription for one or more antibiotics, and on average people in the region received 10.15 defined daily doses (DDDs). Prevalence of use was higher for females (ratio, 1.18), and for young people (under 25) and the elderly (75 and over), and the amount in DDDs/person/year broadly followed this pattern. Māori (indigenous New Zealanders) were less likely to receive a prescription (48% of the population) than non-Māori (55%) and received smaller quantities on average. Rural Māori, including rural Māori children, received few prescriptions and low quantities of antibiotics compared with other population groups. Conclusions The level of antibiotic use in the general population is high, despite campaigns to try to reduce unnecessary use. The prevalence of acute rheumatic fever is high amongst rural Māori, and consequently treatment guidelines recommend prophylactic use of antibiotics for sore throat in this population. This makes the comparatively very low level of use of antibiotics amongst rural Māori children very concerning. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: Researching access to health services, and ways to improve equity, frequently requires researchers to recruit people facing social disadvantage. Recruitment can be challenging, and there is limited high quality evidence to guide researchers. This paper describes experiences of recruiting 1068 participants facing social disadvantage for a randomised controlled trial of prescription charges, and provides evidence on the advantages and disadvantages of recruitment methods. Methods: Those living in areas of higher social deprivation, taking medicines for diabetes, taking anti-psychotic medicines, or with COPD were eligible to participate in the study. Several strategies were trialled to meet recruitment targets. We initially attempted to recruit participants in person, and then switched to a phone-based system, eventually utilising a market research company to deal with incoming calls. We used a range of strategies to publicise the study, including pamphlets in pharmacies and medical centres, media (especially local newspapers) and social media. Results: Enrolling people on the phone was cheaper on average than recruiting in person, but as we refined our approach over time, the cost of the latter dropped significantly. In person recruitment had many advantages, such as enhancing our understanding of potential participants' concerns. Forty-nine percent of our participants are Māori, which we attribute to having Māori researchers on the team, recruiting in areas of high Māori population, team members' existing links with Māori health providers, and engaging and working with Māori providers. Conclusions: Recruiting people facing social disadvantage requires careful planning and flexible recruitment strategies. Support from organisations trusted by potential participants is essential. Registration: The Free Meds study is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618001486213). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Allopurinol is effective for the control of gout and its long-term complications when taken consistently. There is evidence that adherence to allopurinol therapy varies across population groups. This may exacerbate differences in the burden of gout on population groups and needs to be accurately assessed. The aim of this study was to describe the prevalence of allopurinol use in a region of New Zealand using community pharmacy dispensing data and to examine the levels of suboptimal adherence in various population groups. Data from all community pharmacy dispensing databases in a New Zealand region were collected for a year covering 2005/2006 giving a near complete picture of dispensings to area residents. Prevalence of allopurinol use in the region by age, sex, ethnicity and socioeconomic position was calculated. Adherence was assessed using the medication possession ratio (MPR), with a MPR of 0.80 indicative of suboptimal adherence. Multiple logistic regression was used to explore variations in suboptimal adherence across population groups. A total of 953 people received allopurinol in the study year (prevalence 3 %). Prevalence was higher in males (6 %) than in females (1 %) and Māori (5 %) than non-Māori (3 %). The overall MPR during the study was 0.88, with 161 (22 %) of patients using allopurinol having suboptimal adherence. Non-Māori were 54 % less likely to have suboptimal allopurinol adherence compared to Māori (95 % CI 0.30-0.72, p = 0.001). These findings are consistent with those from other studies nationally and internationally and point to the important role for health professionals in improving patient adherence to an effective gout treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increased use of information technology in health care allows researchers to generate data on rates of medication use among population groups, raising questions as to whether these rates are too high or too low. This paper presents findings from a study of records of all prescription medication dispensed in one New Zealand region (Te Tāirawhiti) over a one year period. The study examined patterns of psychotropic medication use amongst older people, by age, gender, ethnicity and socio-economic position. It concludes that the chances of being defined as needing psychotropic medication, that is, of being 'medicalised', are not evenly spread through the elderly population. Gender, age and ethnicity impacted significantly on whether prescriptions were received. Our results suggest the need for a nuanced understanding of the medicalisation of unhappiness and deviant behaviour amongst the elderly which takes into account barriers to treatment for some social groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]