ABSTRACT
While outdoor air quality is managed under the Resource Management Act 1991, which sets National Environmental Standards for outdoor air, no equivalent legislation exists for indoor air quality. The World Health Organization (WHO) recognises that healthy indoor air is a basic human right, stating that the quality of the air people breathe in buildings is an important determinant of health and wellbeing.3 According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the United States (US), indoor air pollutant levels are typically two-to-five times higher than outdoor levels, and in some cases exceed outdoor levels of the same pollutants by a 100 times.4 Globally around 2.6 billion people still use solid fuels and kerosene for cooking, and the United Nations notes that indoor and ambient air pollution are the greatest environmental health risk.3 Time spent indoors combined with higher indoor concentrations of pollutants make the health risks associated with poor air quality usually greater indoors than outdoors. While initial public health efforts focused on measures to reduce fomite transmission, such as hand-washing, it is now well-recognised that airborne exposure is the predominant transmission route of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19).6 International consensus on airborne transmission was achieved in part through cutting-edge research conducted by New Zealand experts, but New Zealand health authorities have been slow to apply this key insight beyond border settings.7 It is imperative that national bodies responsible for the control of the pandemic incorporate the importance of airborne transmission to inform an evidence-based strategy and implement a range of highly effective measures that can prevent airborne transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and other respiratory pathogens, including influenza.8-9'1011 The most effective approach to lowering concentrations of indoor air pollutants, including any pathogens that may be in the air, is usually to increase ventilation,12 exchanging polluted indoor air for cleaner outdoor air. Pollutant standards for heating and cooking appliances, particularly for appliances that use unflued gas should also be considered.20 An investment in clean indoor air could bring benefits other than reducing COVID-19 transmission, including reduced sick leave and school absenteeism caused by other respiratory infections, particularly influenza and other allergies.21 Less absenteeism-with associated adverse effect on productivity-could save companies significant costs.22 Furthermore, there is growing evidence that improved ventilation can improve cognitive functioning of workers and students,23 which can improve both wellbeing, sleep and productivity.24 Ventilation can also reduce indoor moisture particularly in homes, which wifi reduce exposure to respiratory allergens and irritants such as dust mites and mould, resulting in reduced incidence of asthma, rhinitis and allergy symptoms.
ABSTRACT
Background: In Aotearoa New Zealand, Pasifika women have a higher rate of cervical cancer incidence and mortality than European/Other women and a lower screening rate. Despite actions to reduce the barriers, there has been little change in screening coverage for Pasifika women since 2007. Novel strategies are therefore required. Persistent cervical infection with oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) causes virtually all cervical cancers and HPV testing will be implemented in Aotearoa in 2023, with women being able to choose to self-test. We undertook a qualitative focus group (FG) study with Pasifika women to explore their perspectives on the barriers to, and facilitators of, HPV self-testing and how best to implement this in Aotearoa. Methods: A trained female Pasifika Research Assistant facilitated participant recruitment and the FGs. Eligible participants self-identified as Pasifika, were aged 30-69 years, in the Wellington area, who had never been screened or who were overdue (≥5 years) for cervical-cancer screening. Recruitment was predominantly through Pasifika key-informant networks and in collaboration with Pasifika primary care providers. Participants were offered face-to-face FGs but, due to occasional Covid-19 restrictions and personal preferences, FGs via Zoom were also used. The FGs were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The FG transcripts were thematically analysed. Findings: Seven FGs were conducted with 24 participants. We identified five main themes around barriers and potential facilitators of HPV self-testing in Pasifika women: 1) perceptions and knowledge of cervical-cancer screening; 2) challenges to engaging in organised cervical screening; 3) perceptions of self-testing for HPV and challenges women face when deciding to self-test; 4) enthusiasm for an HPV self-test; and 5) information and communication. Knowledge about cervical cancer and screening varied considerably among participants, with some never having heard about cervical-cancer screening. The main challenges that were raised were personal privacy and confidentiality and time management. There was consensus around the need for adequate, consistent, and accurate accessible information to boost the confidence of women undertaking self-testing. In general, the participants were eager for self-testing to be made available soon. This was accompanied by the need for the promotion and implementation of self-testing to include a collective/community approach consistent with Pasifika worldviews. Interpretation: Although participants were enthusiastic about HPV self-testing, multi-level and interacting barriers exist to participation by Pasifika women in HPV self-testing. Implementation of self-testing in Aotearoa New Zealand should be accompanied by clear information about the entire process, using culturally appropriate tailored educational campaigns in different Pasifika languages. Funding: The study was supported by the Collaboration for Cancer Research Aotearoa New Zealand (CCR).
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: While many Aotearoa/New Zealanders are receiving excellent palliative care the Pacific populations have limited access to available hospice and palliative care services. Little research has been conducted to identify barriers unique to Pacific populations accessing these services. The purpose of this study was to explore key stakeholders'perspectives on the determinants of low access among Pacific populations to these services. METHODS: Forty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted face-to-face with hospice patients and their families, hospice/health providers and key informants from the Auckland and Wellington region of Aotearoa/New Zealand. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim and a thematic analysis was carried out by identifying, coding and categorising patterns in the data. Identified themes were then discussed further to determine the relevance of the data grouped by theme. RESULTS: Five interrelated themes affecting access emerged: perception of hospice (often negative) through lack of accurate information, but changing;families'role to look after their own and sick elderly;hospice experiences;continuity of care in the community and the need for information and communication. CONCLUSION: Hospice and associated palliative care services are under-utilised and commonly misunderstood among Pacific populations in Aotearoa/New Zealand. There is active support following appropriate information received, hence the need for community education and culturally appropriate hospice and palliative services. Inadequate inter-professional communication contributes to polypharmacy and inefficiency in continuity of care across all levels. The Pacific individual is one component of a collective that is critical in major decisions in end-of-life and life changing situations. The findings may guide policies and further research to improve Hospice and Palliative services in Aotearoa/New Zealand.