Search

Background: Despite concern about migrant children's mental health and their access to mental healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic, this topic has attracted little research attention. This study aimed to examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the use primary and specialist healthcare services for mental health problems among children and adolescents with migrant background. Methods: Using event study models, we investigated the impact of lockdown and subsequent COVID-19 infection control measures on children's health service use for mental health problems according to migrant background. Drawing on reimbursement data from Norwegian public healthcare providers we observe consultations in a pre-pandemic (2017–2019) and pandemic cohort (2019–2021) in primary and specialised care. Results: The pre-pandemic cohort included 77 324 migrants, 78 406 descendants of migrants and 746 917 non-migrants and the pandemic cohort included 76 830 migrants, 88 331 descendants and 732 609 non-migrants (age 6–19). The full cohorts were observed for mental healthcare use in primary care while a subsample (age 6–16) was observed for health care use in specialist care. Lockdown resulted in a dip in consultation volumes for mental disorders for all children, but this dip was relatively larger and more persistent for children with migrant background. After lockdown, consultation volumes rose more for non-migrant children than for children with migrant background. Consultations in primary healthcare peaked during January to April 2021 for non-migrants and descendants of migrants, but not for migrants (4%, 95% CI -4 to 11). In specialist care during the same period, consultations dropped by 11% for migrants (95% CI -21 to -1). By October 2021, all mental health consultations in specialist care were up with 8% for non-migrants (95% CI 0 to 15), and down with -18% for migrants and -2% for descendants (95% CIs -31 to -5 and -14 to 10). Migrant males experienced the largest reduction in consultations. Conclusions: Changes in consultation volumes among children with migrant background after lockdown were not as pronounced as for non-migrants, and at times actually decreased. This suggests that an increase in barriers to care emerged during the pandemic for children with a migrant background. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: English media have reported that many unvaccinated individuals took the COVID-19 vaccine after receiving a phone call from their GP. Aim: To determine whether phone calls from GPs to unvaccinated patients at increased risk of severe COVID-19 improves uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine. Design & setting: Randomised trial where 202 participants were allocated to receive a phone call from their GP, and 452 participants were allocated to not get the call. Twenty-five GPs at 11 medical centres in Norway took part. The post-trial focus group discussion was with five GPs. Method: Participants were sourced from the GP electronic medical record system, which communicates with the Norwegian Immunisation Registry and can generate a list of the GPs' unvaccinated patients at increased risk of severe COVID-19. Results: The GPs managed to speak over the phone with 154 (76%) patients allocated to receiving a phone call. At follow-up (average 7.5 weeks), 8.9% in the intervention group and 5.3% in the control group had been vaccinated (odds ratio [OR] 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.90 to 3.28). Findings from the focus group discussion suggested the timing of the intervention as a likely key reason for its limited success. Conclusion: An increase in the proportion of patients who took the COVID-19 vaccine in the intervention group was observed, but the difference was smaller than anticipated, and may be a chance finding. The effect of this type of intervention will likely vary across contexts and may have proved more effective if a larger proportion of the population were unvaccinated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a response to the emergence of the new Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant, on December 3, 2021, mandatory testing after entry to Norway was extended to include international travellers with a valid COVID-19 certificate. We aim to validate if mandatory testing upon arrival increased the proportion of travellers confirmed with a positive COVID-19 test after entry. We used individual level data on registered travellers linked with data on COVID-19 testing and confirmed COVID-19 cases. The proportions of confirmed cases among international travellers before and after the requirement were introduced was analysed with an interrupted times series design. The proportion of travellers with an EU COVID-19 certificate tested at an official test station increased from 3% to 43% after mandatory testing was introduced. However, the proportion of all travellers confirmed with COVID-19 rose only marginally with 0.14 percentage point directly after the intervention (p-value.06). The results are limited by the absence of data on antigen tests taken by the traveller at home and missing data from travellers without a valid Norwegian ID. Our findings suggest that the benefit of mandatory testing of all international travellers to Norway was marginal in the period directly after the emergence of the omicron variant. This result must be understood in the context of free of charge testing at official test centres, a government recommendation on a low threshold to test when experiencing symptoms in addition to limited surveillance of the compliance of the test after arrival requirement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As in other countries, the COVID-19 pandemic has affected Norway's immigrant population disproportionately, with significantly higher infection rates and hospitalisations. The reasons for this are uncertain. Methods: Through the national emergency preparedness register, BeredtC19, we have studied laboratory-confirmed infections with SARS-CoV-2 and related hospitalisations in the entire Norwegian population, by birth-country background for the period 15 June 2020 to 31 March 2021, excluding the first wave due to limited test capacity and restrictive test criteria. Straightforward linkage of individual-level data allowed adjustment for demographics, socioeconomic factors (occupation, household crowding, education and household income), and underlying medical risk for severe COVID-19 in regression models. Results: The sample comprised 5.49 million persons, of which 0.91 million were born outside of Norway, there were 82,532 confirmed cases and 3088 hospitalisations. Confirmed infections in this period (per 100,000): foreign-born 3140, Norwegian-born with foreign-born parents 4799 and Norwegian-born with Norwegian-born parent(s) 1011. Hospitalisations (per 100,000): foreign-born 147, Norwegian-born with foreign-born parents 47 and Norwegian-born with Norwegian-born parent(s) 37. The addition of socioeconomic and medical factors to the base model (age, sex, municipality of residence) attenuated excess infection rates by 12.0% and hospitalisations by 3.8% among foreign-born, and 10.9% and 46.2%, respectively, among Norwegian-born with foreign parents, compared to Norwegian-born with Norwegian-born parent(s). Conclusions: There were large differences in infection rates and hospitalisations by country background, and these do not appear to be fully explained by socioeconomic and medical factors. Our results may have implications for health policy, including the targeting of mitigation strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]