Fearnley David, Lawrenson Ross, Nixon Garry
Dunstan Hospital, Clyde, Otago.
Waikato Clinical Campus, The University of Auckland, Hamilton.
N Z Med J. 2016 Aug 5;129(1439):77-81.
There is a considerable mismatch between the population that accesses rural healthcare in New Zealand and the population defined as 'rural' using the current statistics New Zealand rural and urban categorisations. Statistics New Zealand definitions (based on population size or density) do not accurately identify the population of New Zealanders who actually access rural health services. In fact, around 40% of people who access rural health services are classified as 'urban' under the Statistics New Zealand definition, while a further 20% of people who are currently classified as 'rural' actually have ready access to urban health services. Although there is some recognition that current definitions are suboptimal, the extent of the uncertainty arising from these definitions is not widely appreciated. This mismatch is sufficient to potentially undermine the validity of both nationally-collated statistics and also any research undertaken using Statistics New Zealand data. Under these circumstances it is not surprising that the differences between rural and urban health care found in other countries with similar health services have been difficult to demonstrate in New Zealand. This article explains the extent of this mismatch and suggests how definitions of rural might be improved to allow a better understanding of New Zealand rural health.
在新西兰,使用当前新西兰农村和城市分类统计数据来界定“农村”人口时,与实际使用农村医疗服务的人口之间存在相当大的不匹配。新西兰统计局的定义(基于人口规模或密度)并不能准确识别实际使用农村医疗服务的新西兰人口。事实上,按照新西兰统计局的定义,约40%使用农村医疗服务的人被归类为“城市”人口,而目前被归类为“农村”的人口中,另有20%实际上能够方便地使用城市医疗服务。尽管人们已经认识到当前的定义并不理想,但这些定义所产生的不确定性程度并未得到广泛认识。这种不匹配足以潜在地削弱全国汇总统计数据以及使用新西兰统计局数据进行的任何研究的有效性。在这种情况下,在新西兰难以证明与新西兰有类似医疗服务的其他国家中农村和城市医疗之间的差异也就不足为奇了。本文解释了这种不匹配的程度,并提出了如何改进农村定义,以便更好地理解新西兰农村医疗状况。