Objectives: To develop a valid rurality classification for health purposes in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) that is technically robust and incorporates heuristic understandings of rurality.Setting: Our Geographic Classification for Health (GCH) is developed for all of NZ.Participants: We examine the distribution of the entire NZ population across rurality classifications, and use the National Mortality Collection to examine previously masked rural-urban differences in mortality. Outcome measures: Unadjusted all-cause mortality rates and rural:urban incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Results: The GCH modifies key population and drive time thresholds in the generic rurality classifications, thereby identifying 19% of the NZ population as rural. Rural and urban all-cause mortality rates and associated rural:urban IRRs vary considerably depending on rurality classification. The GCH finds a rural mortality rate 21% higher than for urban areas.Conclusions: The GCH identifies a distinct rural population, and highlights rural-urban inequities that are masked by generic classifications.

No abstract

Background This research examines the equity implications of the geographic distribution of COVID-19 vaccine delivery locations in Aotearoa New Zealand under five potential scenarios: (1) stadium mega-clinics; (2) Community Based Assessment Centres; (3) GP clinics; (4) community pharmacies; and (5) schools. Methods We mapped the distribution of Aotearoa New Zealand’s population and the location of potential vaccine delivery facilities under each scenario. Geostatistical techniques identified population clusters for Māori, Pacific and people aged 65 years and over. We calculated travel times between all potential facilities and each Statistical Area 1 in the country. Descriptive statistics indicate the size and proportion of populations that could face significant travel barriers when accessing COVID-19 vaccinations. Results Several areas with significant travel times to potential vaccine delivery sites were also communities identified as having an elevated risk of COVID-19 disease and severity. All potential scenarios for vaccine delivery, with the exception of schools, resulted in travel barriers for a substantial proportion of the population. Overall, these travel time barriers disproportionately burden Māori, older communities and people living in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation. Conclusions The equitable delivery of COVID-19 vaccines is key to an elimination strategy. However, if current health services and facilities are used without well-designed and supported outreach services, then access to vaccination is likely to be inequitable. Key messages Organisations need to proactively plan for equity, including the delivery of COVID-19 vaccines. A social justice approach should be prioritised, and in Aotearoa Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations must be met.

Introduction: Geographic measures of accessibility can quantify inequitable distributions of health care. Although closest distance measures are often used in Aotearoa New Zealand these may not reflect patient use of health care. This research examines patterns of patient enrolment in general practitioner (GP) services from a geospatial perspective.Methods: Patient enrolment records (n=137 596) from one primary health organisation were examined and geographic information systems used to determine whether patients enrolled with their closest GP service. A binomial logistic regression was performed to examine factors associated with the bypass of GP services closer to patients' homes.Rural and Remote Health rrh.org.au

Background Spatial equity analysis has been carried out in a variety of contexts and on a range of health services. However, there is no clear consensus on spatial equity definitions or measures. This review seeks to summarize spatial equity definitions and methods of analysis. Methods We systematically searched two electronic databases and six journals for papers providing a definition of spatial equity or performing a spatial equity analysis on health services. Studies were classified according to four definition themes: (1) distributional fairness; (2) needs-based distribution; (3) focus on outcomes or causes and (4) none provided. Results Seventy-five studies met our inclusion criteria. Sixty-one papers provided a definition of spatial equity, while a further 14 papers analysed the spatial equity of health services without providing a definition. Most authors used a needs-based definition of spatial equity, while the Gini coefficient was the most commonly used equity measure. However, analysis approaches varied according to the definition provided by each paper. Among the needs-based definitions, spatial autocorrelation was the most common spatial equity measure. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review summarizing spatial equity definitions and analysis methods. A lack of consensus on definitions and measures persists. The classification of measures according to definition themes makes this review a useful tool for planning and interpreting spatial equity investigations. Future research should examine the impact different measures of accessibility and need have on the results of spatial equity research.