Search

Objective: Caring for refugee patients places special demands on health professionals. To date, medical students in Germany have rarely been systematically prepared for these challenges. This article reports on the development, conceptualisation, implementation, evaluation, and relevance of a multidisciplinary elective for medical students in the clinical study phase.Methodology: The course content was developed based on a needs-assessment among medical students and in cooperation with medical colleagues working in the field of refugee care. The course consisted of a seminar with medical, legal, administrative and socio-cultural learning content as well as a field placement in the medical outpatient clinic of the local reception centre for asylum seekers, which was accompanied by a systematic reflection process. The evaluation concept contained qualitative and quantitative elements. Results: 123 students completed the elective over six semesters (summer 2016 through to winter 2018). It was continuously evaluated and further developed. The students reported learning progress mainly in the following areas: Legal foundations of the asylum procedure and health care entitlements for asylum seekers; multi-perspectivity through multidisciplinarity as well as professional, ethical, interpersonal, and political insights gained through the practical experience.Summary: To prepare students for the complex challenges to be faced in medical care for refugees, a structured, multidisciplinary teaching programme, which combines theory, practice and reflection helps to foster insights into the many facets of this field of activity. The questions students brought to the seminar, the course contents and evaluation results are intended to inspire the design and implementation of similar courses at other universities.

[english] Aim: To formulate a guideline on educational objectives and methodology for the implementation of the cross-disciplinary subject “Global Health” in German medical education, on the initiative of the German Medical Students’ Association (bvmd Germany). Methods: For this purpose, the Globalisation and Health Initiative (GandHI) of bvmd Germany established the “Global Health Curriculum” working group in May 2008. Review and assessment of available international literature regarding Global Health in medical education. Multilevel consensus development process from May 2008 to January 2009 by means of workshops, group discussions, teleconferences, and e-mail. Results: The bvmd Germany calls for The formulation of 15 general educational objectives based on proposals (ii) and (iii). Three clusters shall formulate specific objectives: Regarding form, duration, and implementation of courses. [german] Zielsetzung: Formulierung einer Leitlinie zu Lernzielen und der praktischen Umsetzung eines disziplinübergreifenden Fachgebiets „Global Health“ für die medizinische Ausbildung in Deutschland aus Sicht der Bundesvertretung der Medizinstudierenden (bvmd). Methodik: Initiierung des Arbeitskreises „Global Health Curriculum“ innerhalb der Globalisation and Health Initiative (GandHI) der bvmd im Mai 2008. Nicht-systematische Recherche und Bewertung nationaler und internationaler Literatur zu Global Health in der medizinischen Ausbildung. Mehrstufiger Konsensbildungsprozess von Mai 2008 bis Januar 2009 durch Workshops, Arbeitstreffen, Gruppendiskussionen, Telefonkonferenzen und Email-Kommunikation, initiert und koordiniert durch den Arbeitskreis „Global Health Curriculum“ der GandHI. Ergebnisse: : Die bvmd plädiert für Formulierung von 15 allgemeinen Lernzielen, aufbauend auf den Positionen (ii) und (iii). Bestehend aus Aufbauend auf Position (iv) wird nahe gelegt, entsprechende Kurse als Tagesveranstaltung in Seminarform mit einer Dauer von 4 Semesterwochen anzubieten.

Background Post-migration follow-up of migrants identified to be at-risk of developing tuberculosis during the initial screening is effective, but programmes vary across countries. We aimed to review main strategies applied to design follow-up programmes and analyse the effect of key programme characteristics on reported coverage (i.e., proportion of migrants screened among those eligible for screening) or yields (i.e., proportion of active tuberculosis among those identified as eligible for follow-up screening). Methods and findings We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting yields of follow-up screening programmes. Studies were included if they reported the rate of tuberculosis disease detected in international migrants through active case finding strategies and applied a post-migration follow-up (defined as one or more additional rounds of screening after finalising the initial round). For this, we retrieved all studies identified by Chan and colleagues for their systematic review (in their search until January 12, 2017) and included those reporting from active follow-up programmes. We then updated the search (from January 12, 2017 to September 30, 2022) using Medline and Embase via Ovid. Data were extracted on reported coverage, yields, and key programme characteristics, including eligible population, mode of screening, time intervals for screening, programme providers, and legal frameworks. Differences in follow-up programmes were tabulated and synthesised narratively. Meta-analyses in random effect models and exploratory analysis of subgroups showed high heterogeneity (I.sup.2 statistic > 95.0%). We hence refrained from pooling, and estimated yields and coverage with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), stratified by country, legal character (mandatory versus voluntary screening), and follow-up scheme (one-off versus repetitive screening) using forest plots for comparison and synthesis. Of 1,170 articles, 24 reports on screening programmes from 7 countries were included, with considerable variation in eligible populations, time intervals of screening, and diagnostic protocols. Coverage varied, but was higher than 60% in 15 studies, and tended to be lower in voluntary compared to compulsory programmes, and higher in studies from the United States of America, Israel, and Australia. Yield varied within and between countries and ranged between 53.05 (31.94 to 82.84) in a Dutch study and 5,927.05 (4,248.29 to 8,013.71) in a study from the United States. Of 15 estimates with narrow 95% CIs for yields, 12 were below 1,500 cases per 100,000 eligible migrants. Estimates of yields in one-off follow-up programmes tended to be higher and were surrounded by less uncertainty, compared to those in repetitive follow-up programmes. Yields in voluntary and mandatory programmes were comparable in magnitude and uncertainty. The study is limited by the heterogeneity in the design of the identified screening programmes as effectiveness, coverage and yields also depend on factors often underreported or not known, such as baseline incidence in the respective population, reactivation rate, educative and administrative processes, and consequences of not complying with obligatory measures. Conclusion Programme characteristics of post-migration follow-up screening for prevention and control of tuberculosis as well as coverage and yield vary considerably. Voluntary programmes appear to have similar yields compared with mandatory programmes and repetitive screening apparently did not lead to higher yields compared with one-off screening. Screening strategies should consider marginal costs for each additional round of screening., Author(s): Katharina Wahedi 1, Dominik Zenner 2, Sergio Flores 3, Kayvan Bozorgmehr 1,4,* Introduction Several countries with a low incidence of tuberculosis implement active case finding strategies for tuberculosis among [...]

Background During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, immunization programmes struggled to reach all population groups equally. While migrant groups face multiple barriers to health systems, including vaccination, little is known about their vaccine uptake. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional telephone survey on adults with and without migration history in Germany to investigate barriers and drivers to COVID-19 vaccination (11 April 2021 to 18 December 2021). Interviews were conducted in six languages. We used logistic regression models and a mediation model to analyze the association between migration history and vaccine uptake. Furthermore, we determined the effect of psychological determinants (5C model) on vaccine uptake. Results The survey comprised 2039 individuals, including 1015 with migration history. Of these, 448 were interviews conducted in languages other than German. Individuals with migration history had a significantly lower vaccine uptake but, while still unvaccinated, had a higher intention to get vaccinated (P  = 0.015) compared with those without migration history. The association between migration history and vaccine uptake was no longer significant when other factors were included in the regression model (odds ratio = 0.9; 95% confidence interval: 0.57–1.47). Socio-economic index, language skills and discrimination experience fully mediated this association. Among the psychological determinants, 'higher confidence' and 'higher collective responsibility' increased the chance of individuals with migration history to be vaccinated. Conclusion Migration history alone cannot explain vaccine uptake; socio-economic index, language skills and discrimination experiences need to be considered. To achieve vaccine equity, future public health policy should aim to reduce relevant barriers through tailored interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is the most common form of interpersonal violence and a major public health problem. The COVID-19 pandemic might have contributed to an increase in IPV experiences. To evaluate changes in IPV prevalence during the pandemic, it is important to consider studies' methodological characteristics such as the assessment tools used, samples addressed, or administration modes (e.g., face-to-face, telephone or online interviews), since they may influence disclosure and were likely affected by pandemic-imposed mobility restrictions. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of empirical studies addressing IPV against women, men, or both, during the COVID-19 period. We searched six electronic databases until December 2021, including articles in English, German, Spanish, French or Portuguese languages. We extracted and synthesised characteristics of studies related to sampling (clinical, community, convenience), type assessment tool (standardised questionnaire, specifically created questions), method of administration (online, telephone, face-to-face), and estimates of different forms of IPV (physical, sexual, psychological). IPV estimates were pooled stratified by study characteristics using random-effects models. Results: Of 3581 publications, we included 103 studies. Fifty-five studies used a standardized instrument (or some adaptations) to assess IPV, with the World Health Organisation Questionnaire and the Revised Conflicts Tactics Scales being the most frequent. For 34 studies, the authors created specific questions to assess IPV. Sixty-one studies were conducted online, 16 contacted participants face-to-face and 11 by telephone. The pooled prevalence estimate for any type of violence against women (VAW) was 21% (95% Confidence Interval, 95%CI = 18%-23%). The pooled estimate observed for studies assessing VAW using the telephone was 19% (95%CI = 10%-28%). For online studies it was 16% (95%CI = 13%-19%), and for face-to-face studies, it was 38% (95%CI = 28%-49%). According to the type of sample, a pooled estimate of 17% (95%CI = 9%-25%) was observed for studies on VAW using a clinical sample. This value was 21% (95%CI = 18%-24%) and 22% (95%CI = 16%-28%) for studies assessing VAW using a convenience sample and a general population or community sample, respectively. According to the type of instrument, studies on VAW using a standardized tool revealed a pooled estimate of 21% (95%CI = 18%-25%), and an estimate of 17% (95%CI = 13%-21%) was found for studies using specifically created questions. Conclusions: During the pandemic, IPV prevalence studies showed great methodological variation. Most studies were conducted online, reflecting adaptation to pandemic measures implemented worldwide. Prevalence estimates were higher in face-to-face studies and in studies using a standardized tool. However, estimates of the different forms of IPV during the pandemic do not suggest a marked change in prevalence compared to pre-pandemic global prevalence estimates, suggesting that one in five women experienced IPV during this period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]