Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Background New Zealand’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic involved a nationwide stay-at-home lockdown in March–April 2020 that restricted access to primary healthcare services.
Methods An online survey of 15–24-year-olds in a high deprivation region of New Zealand asked about the need for, and receipt of, sexual healthcare during lockdown. Experience of telehealth and preferences for future receipt of sexual healthcare were also explored. Social media advertising was used to recruit participants over five weeks in August and October 2020.
Results The survey sample included 500 respondents comprising 58.8% females, 25.4% Māori (indigenous) ethnicity and 21.4% LGBTQI+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex +) young people. During lockdown, 22.2% of respondents reported sexual health needs (111/500), but fewer than half this group got help (45%, 50/111), believing their issue could wait, or due to barriers contacting services and lack of information about service availability. Experience of telehealth consultations (by 28/50 participants) was mostly favourable though only 46% agreed it was easier than going to the clinic. Telehealth methods were the preferred option by some participants for future receipt of sexual healthcare; but for most scenarios suggested, respondents favoured in-person clinic visits.
Conclusions Young people experienced unmet need for sexual healthcare during lockdown in New Zealand, but not because services were unavailable. Findings point to the need for targeted information dissemination to young people about available services and the importance of seeking help during lockdown. More research is needed to understand the advantages and disadvantages of sexual healthcare delivered via telehealth to inform future service provision.
- COVID-19
- health services accessibility
- sexual health
- surveys and questionnaires
- patient satisfaction
Data availability statement
No data are available. All data collected in the study survey are being analysed and published by the research team. Ethical approval was not sought to make data publicly available and study participants were advised that their data would only be used and viewed by the immediate research team.
This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.
https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usageStatistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
No data are available. All data collected in the study survey are being analysed and published by the research team. Ethical approval was not sought to make data publicly available and study participants were advised that their data would only be used and viewed by the immediate research team.
Footnotes
Contributors SBR and SMG conceived of the original research question and obtained funding. SBR, SMG, EMM and SJM planned the study and designed the survey questionnaire. SBR and EMM organised, and liaised with, the organisation hosting the focus groups. SMG prepared the online survey and cleaned the dataset. SBR collated data, undertook analyses, prepared tables and figures, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. SBR, SMG, EMM and SJM contributed to data interpretation, revised the first and subsequent drafts critically for intellectual content, and approved the final manuscript. All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. SBR is the manuscript’s guarantor.
Funding This work was supported by the Hawkes Bay Medical Research Foundation (grant-in-aid, 2019) and a University of Otago Dean’s grant (grant-in-aid, 2019). The funding bodies played no part in the study design, collection, analysis or interpretation of the data, writing of the report, or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. Refer to the Methods section for further details.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.