Search

Introduction: The Middle East and North African (MENA) region is characterised by high and complex migration flows, yet little is known about the health of migrant populations, their levels of underimmunisation and access to healthcare provision. Data are needed to support regional elimination and control targets for key diseases and the design and delivery of programmes to improve health outcomes in these groups. This protocol describes a suite of seven systematic reviews that aim to identify, appraise and synthesise the available evidence on the burden and health outcomes, policies and access (barriers and facilitators) related to these mobile populations in the region., Methods: Seven systematic reviews will cover three questions to explore the: (1) burden and health outcomes, (2) policies and (3) healthcare barriers and facilitators for the following seven disease areas in migrants in the MENA region: tuberculosis, HIV and hepatitis B and C, malaria and neglected tropical diseases, diabetes, mental health, maternal and neonatal health, and vaccine-preventable diseases. We will search electronic databases for studies in any language (year 2000-2023), reference-check relevant publications and cross-check included studies with experts. We will search for grey literature by hand searching key databases and websites (including regional organisations and MoH websites) for country-specific guidelines and talking to our network of experts for local and regional reports and key datasets. We will assess the studies and policies for their quality using appropriate tools. We will meta-analyse the data by disease outcome if they are of sufficient volume and similarity. Where meta-analysis is not possible and where data are on policy or access, we will narratively synthesise the evidence using summary tables, figures and text., Dissemination: We anticipate disseminating the findings through peer-reviewed publications, conferences and other formats relevant to all stakeholders. We are following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and protocols will be registered on International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: There is a growing debate surrounding the legalisation of medical assistance in dying (MAID). MAID is currently prohibited by the French law; however, the debate has recently been reinvigorated in France. This study aims to collect opinions of palliative care stakeholders (PCS) regarding the legalisation of MAID and to identify the factors associated with their opinions., Methods: We performed a transversal survey between 26 June 2021 and 25 July 2021, on PCS who were on the French national scientific society for palliative care. Participants were invited by email., Results: 1439 PCS took part and expressed an opinion about the legalisation of MAID. 1053 (69.7%) were against the legalisation of MAID. When forced to choose which option should be privileged if the law had to change, 3.7% favoured euthanasia, 10.1% favoured assisted suicide with provision of lethal drug by a professional, 27.5% favoured assisted suicide with prescription of a lethal drug and 29.5% favoured assisted suicide with provision of a lethal drug by an association. The opinion regarding legalisation of MAID was statistically different depending on the participant profession (p<0.001) and when comparing clinical and non-clinical positions (p<0.001). A quarter of participants (26.7%) believe that legalising MAID might lead them to change their current position., Conclusions: Overall, French palliative care professionals are against a modification of the current legal framework for legalising MAID but some might change their current position if a law was voted. This might destabilise the PCS demography that is already worrying., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)