Search

Complementing the well-established evidence base on health inequalities experienced by migrants, refugees and asylum seekers in the UK; we examined the extent to which their right to equal non-discriminatory access to health services (promotive, preventive, curative) was upheld during the COVID-19 pandemic. Arksey and O′Malley's scoping review framework. A comprehensive search was conducted on Medline, PubMed, and CINAHL using detailed MESH terms, for literature published between 01 January 2020 and 01 January 2024. The process was supported by a ten-page Google search and hand searching of reference lists. 42 records meeting the inclusion criteria were charted, coded inductively and analysed thematically in an integrated team-based approach. Dissonance between immigration regulation and health governance is illustrated in four themes: Health systems leveraged to (re)enforce the hostile environment; Dissonance between health rights on paper and in practice; Structural failures to overcome communication and digital exclusion; and COVID-19 vaccine (in)equity exacerbated fear, mistrust and exclusion. Migrants, refugees and asylum seekers encountered substantial individual, structural and policy-level barriers to accessing healthcare in the UK during COVID-19. Insecure immigration status, institutional mistrust, data-sharing and charging fears, communication challenges and digital exclusion impacted heavily on their ability to access healthcare in an equitable non-discriminatory manner. An inclusive and innovative health equity and rights-based responses reaching all migrants, refugees and asylum seekers are warranted if the National Health Service is to live up to its promise of ' leaving no one behind' in post-pandemic and future responses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we trace how mathematical models are made 'evidence enough' and 'useful for policy'. Working with the interview accounts of mathematical modellers and other scientists engaged in the UK Covid-19 response, we focus on two weeks in March 2020 prior to the announcement of an unprecedented national lockdown. A key thread in our analysis is how pandemics are made 'big'. We follow the work of one particular device, that of modelled 'doubling-time'. By following how modelled doubling-time entangles in its assemblage of evidence-making, we draw attention to multiple actors, including beyond models and metrics, which affect how evidence is performed in relation to the scale of epidemic and its policy response. We draw attention to: policy; Government scientific advice infrastructure; time; uncertainty; and leaps of faith. The 'bigness' of the pandemic, and its evidencing, is situated in social and affective practices, in which uncertainty and dis-ease are inseparable from calculus. This materialises modelling in policy as an 'uncomfortable science'. We argue that situational fit in-the-moment is at least as important as empirical fit when attending to what models perform in policy. • Pandemics are performed as crises of uncertain yet catastrophic potential. • Mathematical models are forms of scalar narrative affording epidemics their scale. • Models and projections are made useful as evidence in their situated policy events. • Calculations are given agency as affects in the evidencing of pandemics. • Modelling pandemics is a site of 'uncomfortable science' and 'dis-ease'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gastrointestinal infections are an important global public health issue. In the UK, one in four people experience a gastrointestinal infection each year and epidemiological research highlights inequalities in the burden of disease. Specifically, poorer children are at greater risk of infection and the consequences of illness, such as symptom severity and time off work/school, are greater for less privileged groups of all ages. Gastrointestinal infections are, however, largely 'hidden' within the home and little is known about the lived experience and practices surrounding these illnesses, how they vary across contrasting socioeconomic contexts, or how inequalities in the disease burden across socioeconomic groups might come about. This paper presents data from an ethnographic study which illuminate how socioeconomic inequalities in the physical and material management and consequences of gastrointestinal infections are generated in families with young children. The study shows how the 'work' needed to manage gastrointestinal infections is more laborious for people living in more 'disadvantaged' conditions, exacerbated by: more overcrowded homes with fewer washing and toilet facilities; inflexible employment; low household incomes; and higher likelihood of co-morbidities which can be made worse by having a gastrointestinal infection. Our findings call into question the current approach to prevention of gastrointestinal infections which tend to focus almost exclusively on individual behaviours, which are not adapted to reflect differences in socioeconomic context. Public health agencies should also consider how wider social, economic and policy contexts shape inequalities in the management and consequences of illness. Our findings are also pertinent to the COVID-19 pandemic response in the UK. They highlight how research and policy approaches to acute infectious diseases need to take into consideration the differing lived experiences of contrasting households if they wish to address (and avoid exacerbating) inequalities in the future. • First ethnographic study to examine UK socioeconomic inequalities in GI infections. • GI infections create a huge amount of labour for all families with young children. • Co-morbidities, poorer living conditions and low income increase GI infection labour. • Low paid, insecure, inflexible work exacerbates material consequences of infection. • GI infection policy should look beyond behavioural advice to address inequalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]