Background: During the first COVID-19 pandemic ‘lockdown’ in Aotearoa/New Zealand (March–May 2020, in which strict ‘stay at home’ measures were introduced), general practices were advised to use telephone and video consultations (telehealth) wherever possible instead of the usual in-person visits. This was a sudden change for most practices and patients. This research aimed to explore how patients accessed general practice during lockdown and evaluate their experiences with telehealth, to inform how telehealth could be most effectively used in the future. Methods: Using a mixed-method approach, we undertook an online survey and in-depth interviews with adults (> 18 years) who had contact with practices during lockdown, recruited through social media and email lists. We present descriptive statistics from the survey data (n = 1010) and qualitative analysis of interview data (n = 38) and open-ended survey questions, using a framework of access to health care, from the patient’s perspective. Results: In general, patients reported high satisfaction with telehealth in general practice during lockdown. Telehealth was convenient and allowed patients to safely access health care without having to weigh-up the fear of COVID-19 infection against the need to be seen. Telehealth worked best for routine and familiar health issues and when rapport was established between patients and clinicians. This was easier with a pre-existing clinical relationship, but not impossible without one. Telehealth was less suitable when a physical examination was needed, when the diagnosis was unknown or for patients who had a strong preference to be seen in-person. Conclusions: Even in this disruptive lockdown period, that prompted an unexpected and rapid implementation of telehealth services in general practices, most patients had positive experiences with telehealth. In the future, patients want the choice of consultation type to match their needs, circumstances, and preferences. Technological issues and funding barriers may need to be addressed, and clear communication for both patients and clinicians is needed about key aspects of telehealth (e.g. cost, appropriateness, privacy). Maintaining telehealth as an option post-lockdown has the potential to increase timely and safe access to primary health care for many patients.

Background: In Aotearoa/New Zealand, the first nation-wide coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lockdown occurred from March 23, 2020 to May 13, 2020, requiring most people to stay at home. Health services had to suddenly change how they delivered healthcare and some services were limited or postponed. This study investigated access to healthcare during this lockdown period, whether patients delayed seeking healthcare and reasons for these delays, focusing on the accessibility of primary care services. Methods: Adults (aged 18 years or older) who had contact with primary care services were invited through social media and email lists to participate in an online survey (n = 1010) and 38 people were recruited for in-depth interviews. We thematically analysed qualitative data from the survey and interviews, reported alongside relevant descriptive survey results. Results: More than half (55%) of survey respondents delayed seeking healthcare during lockdown. Factors at a national or health system-level that could influence delay were changing public service messages, an excessive focus on COVID-19 and urgent issues, and poor service integration. Influential factors at a primary care-level were communication and outreach, use of technology, gatekeeping, staff manner and the safety of the clinical practice environment. Factors that influenced patients’ individual decisions to seek healthcare were the ability to self-manage and self-triage, consciousness of perceived pressure on health services and fear of infection. Conclusion: In future pandemic lockdowns or crises, appropriate access to primary care services can be improved by unambiguous national messages and better integration of services. Primary care practices should adopt rapid proactive outreach to patients, fostering a calm but safe clinical practice environment. More support for patients to self-manage and self-triage appropriately could benefit over-burdened health systems during lockdowns and as part of business as usual in less extraordinary times.

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.

Discrimination against people with mental health and substance use conditions (MHSUC) by health professionals contributes to the poor physical health outcomes this group experiences. We surveyed people with MHSUC in Aotearoa New Zealand to explore how they experienced and responded to discrimination from physical health services. Participants identified 6 strategies used to avoid or minimize the impact of discrimination. Avoidance strategies included not seeking help, not disclosing MHSUC diagnoses and changing or seeking out health professionals who did not behave in discriminatory ways. Minimizing strategies were being a “model patient,” taking a support person to consultations or advocating for what they needed, even in the face of discrimination. Physical health services must focus on providing non-discriminatory care to reduce the need for compensatory strategies and improve care of physical illness for people with MHSUC.

The New Zealand Medical Journal (NZMJ) is the principal scientific journal for the medical profession in New Zealand. The Journal has become a fundamental resource for providing research and written pieces from the health and medical industry.

Introduction: Migraine is a complex neurological condition which requires evidence based treatment, tailored to the individual. International evidence shows that treatment is often sub-optimal, but the experience of people with migraine in NZ is unknown. Aim: This study aimed to describe the barriers people with migraine disease face when seeking care for their condition in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ). Methods: The Migraine in Aotearoa New Zealand Survey (MiANZ) was delivered online via SurveyMonkey from 22 August 2022 to 7 October 2022. Questions included: sociodemographics, the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS), ability to access health care, perception of health professionals’ knowledge and open-ended questions. Analysis used a mixed method approach. Results: Five hundred and thirty people from NZ responded, of whom 82% (433/530) were female and 77% (409/530) NZ European/other. Eighty-eight percent (467/530) had accessed primary care for migraine, with 36% (167/467) finding GPs’ knowledge of migraine to be excellent or very good. Forty-two percent (222/530) reported at least one instance where they had felt judged because of migraine by a health professional. Themes from free-text data included patient perception of health professionals’ knowledge of migraine, the presence of stigma within medical practice and systemic barriers to accessing effective health care. Discussion: People with migraine in NZ report significant barriers when trying to access effective management. Barriers were in both primary and secondary care and impacted the ability of people with migraine to manage their condition. More current migraine continuing medical education for GPs and other health professionals, better development and communication of care plans between primary and secondary care and patients and measures to address stigma are required to improve management of this complex disease.