Search

Migrants, defined as individuals who move from their country of origin to another, account for 40% of newly-diagnosed cases of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA). Populations at high risk for HIV include migrants, from countries or living in neighbourhoods where HIV is prevalent, and those participating in high risk behaviour. These migrants are at risk of low CD4 counts at diagnosis, increased morbidity, mortality, and onward transmission. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HIV testing strategies in migrant populations and to estimate their effect on testing uptake, mortality, and resource requirements. Following a systematic overview, we included four systematic reviews on the effectiveness of strategies in non-migrant populations and inferred their effect on migrant populations, as well as eight individual studies on cost-effectiveness/resource requirements. We assessed the certainty of our results using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The systematic reviews reported that HIV tests are highly accurate (rapid test >90% sensitivity, Western blot and ELISA >99% sensitivity). A meta-analysis showed that rapid testing approaches improve the access and uptake of testing (risk ratio = 2.95, 95% CI: 1.69 to 5.16), and were associated with a lower incidence of HIV in the middle-aged women subgroup among marginalised populations at a high risk of HIV exposure and HIV related stigma. Economic evidence on rapid counselling and testing identified strategic advantages with rapid tests. In conclusion, community-based rapid testing programmes may have the potential to improve uptake of HIV testing among migrant populations across a range of EU/EEA settings.

Newly arrived migrants to the EU/EEA (arrival within the past five years), as well as other migrant groups in the region, might be under-immunised and lack documentation of previous vaccinations, putting them at increased risk of vaccine-preventable diseases circulating in Europe. We therefore performed a systematic review conforming to PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO CRD42016045798) to explore: (i) interventions that improve vaccine uptake among migrants; and (ii) cost-effectiveness of vaccination strategies among this population. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) between 1 January 2006 to 18 June 2018. We included three primary intervention studies performed in the EU/EEA or high-income countries and one cost effectiveness study relevant to vaccinations in migrants. Intervention studies showed small but promising impact only on vaccine uptake with social mobilization/community outreach, planned vaccination programs and education campaigns. Targeting migrants for catch-up vaccination is cost effective for presumptive vaccination for diphtheria, tetanus, and polio, and there was no evidence of benefit of carrying out pre-vaccination serological testing. The cost-effectiveness is sensitive to the seroprevalence and adherence to vaccinations of the migrant. We conclude that scarce but direct EU/EEA data suggest social mobilization, vaccine programs, and education campaigns are promising strategies for migrants, but more research is needed. Research should also study cost effectiveness of strategies. Vaccination of migrants should continue to be a public heath priority in EU/EEA.

Migrants from hepatitis B virus (HBV) endemic countries to the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) comprise 5.1% of the total EU/EEA population but account for 25% of total chronic Hepatitis B (CHB) infection. Migrants from high HBV prevalence regions are at the highest risk for CHB morbidity. These migrants are at risk of late detection of CHB complications; mortality and onwards transmission. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CHB screening and vaccination programs among migrants to the EU/EEA. We found no RCTs or direct evidence evaluating the effectiveness of CHB screening on morbidity and mortality of migrants. We therefore used a systematic evidence chain approach to identify studies relevant to screening and prevention programs; testing, treatment, and vaccination. We identified four systematic reviews and five additional studies and guidelines that reported on screening and vaccination effectiveness. Studies reported that vaccination programs were highly effective at reducing the prevalence of CHB in children (RR 0.07 95% CI 0.04 to 0.13) following vaccination. Two meta-analyses of therapy for chronic HBV infection found improvement in clinical outcomes and intermediate markers of disease. We identified nine studies examining the cost-effectiveness of screening for CHB: a strategy of screening and treating CHB compared to no screening. The median acceptance of HB screening was 87.4% (range 32.3⁻100%). Multiple studies highlighted barriers to and the absence of effective strategies to ensure linkage of treatment and care for migrants with CHB. In conclusion, screening of high-risk children and adults and vaccination of susceptible children, combined with treatment of CHB infection in migrants, are promising and cost-effective interventions, but linkage to treatment requires more attention.

BACKGROUND: Health equity concerns the absence of avoidable and unfair differences in health. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can provide evidence about the impact of an intervention on health equity for specific disadvantaged populations or in general populations; this is important for equity-focused decision-making. Previous work has identified a lack of adequate reporting guidelines for assessing health equity in RCTs. The objective of this study is to develop guidelines to improve the reporting of health equity considerations in RCTs, as an extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). METHODS/DESIGN: A six-phase study using integrated knowledge translation governed by a study executive and advisory board will assemble empirical evidence to inform the CONSORT-equity extension. To create the guideline, the following steps are proposed: (1) develop a conceptual framework for identifying "equity-relevant trials," (2) assess empirical evidence regarding reporting of equity-relevant trials, (3) consult with global methods and content experts on how to improve reporting of health equity in RCTs, (4) collect broad feedback and prioritize items needed to improve reporting of health equity in RCTs, (5) establish consensus on the CONSORT-equity extension: the guideline for equity-relevant trials, and (6) broadly disseminate and implement the CONSORT-equity extension. DISCUSSION: This work will be relevant to a broad range of RCTs addressing questions of effectiveness for strategies to improve practice and policy in the areas of social determinants of health, clinical care, health systems, public health, and international development, where health and/or access to health care is a primary outcome. The outcomes include a reporting guideline (CONSORT-equity extension) for equity-relevant RCTs and a knowledge translation strategy to broadly encourage its uptake and use by journal editors, authors, and funding agencies.

Aims & rationale/Objectives: To present and debate the contentious areas of an evidenced-based framework for delivering accessible and coordinated primary health care to refugees in Australia. Through facilitating multi-sectorial dialogue, key strategies for improving PHC delivery will be explored. Content: The Symposium will be based on our investigation of best practice models for delivering accessible and coordinated PHC for refugees in Australia, funded by the Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute. We will begin by summarising the findings of our systematic review that identifies the components of models of PHC that improve access, coordination and quality of care for refugees. From our national consultation findings we will show where Australia's attempts to deliver care to refugees fall short of best practice. We will then present our proposed, enhanced model for delivering PHC to refugees in Australia. We will facilitate discussions about the implications of the proposed model of care. We will explore the benefits of, barriers to and creative strategies for implementation. Who should lead? How can the system assist mainstream providers to work with these complex clients?Relevance to conference theme: This symposium demonstrates the integration of knowledge exchange to improve primary health care outcomes from initial national stakeholder engagement in project planning to ongoing knowledge exchange activities with Australian policy makers and providers. In collaboration with invited representatives from the Commonwealth Departments of Health, Immigration and Border Protection and Social Services; state and territory Health; the Refugee Health Network of Australia and refugee health and social welfare services, the symposium itself will also provide a platform for integrated knowledge exchange.

IntroductionRefugees have many complex health care needs which should be addressed by the primary health care services, both on their arrival in resettlement countries and in their transition to long-term care. The aim of this narrative synthesis is to identify the components of primary health care service delivery models for such populations which have been effective in improving access, quality and coordination of care. MethodsA systematic review of the literature, including published systematic reviews, was undertaken. Studies between 1990 and 2011 were identified by searching Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Australian Public Affairs Information Service -- Health, Health and Society Database, Multicultural Australian and Immigration Studies and Google Scholar. A limited snowballing search of the reference lists of all included studies was also undertaken. A stakeholder advisory committee and international advisers provided papers from grey literature. Only English language studies of evaluated primary health care models of care for refugees in developed countries of resettlement were included. ResultsTwenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria for this review of which15 were Australian and 10 overseas models. These could be categorised into six themes: service context, clinical model, workforce capacity, cost to clients, health and non-health services. Access was improved by multidisciplinary staff, use of interpreters and bilingual staff, no-cost or low-cost services, outreach services, free transport to and from appointments, longer clinic opening hours, patient advocacy, and use of gender-concordant providers. These services were affordable, appropriate and acceptable to the target groups. Coordination between the different health care services and services responding to the social needs of clients was improved through case management by specialist workers. Quality of care was improved by training in cultural sensitivity and appropriate u

Aims & rationale/Objectives: Refugees have complex health care needs requiring access to quality PHC, and coordination across health and non-health services. The aim of this study was to identify components of PHC service delivery models for refugees in destination countries which were effective in improving access, quality and coordination of care. Methods: A systematic review of the peer reviewed and grey literature published between 1990-2011. We included any evaluations of PHC in the main developed destination countries. The models needed to refer to specific aspect of care for refugees and organisation and/delivery of primary health care. Findings: Of the 256 full text papers reviewed, only 25 met our inclusion criteria - ten from overseas and fifteen from Australia. Successful strategies that enhanced access were outreach services, multidisciplinary staff, use of interpreters and bilingual staff, no-cost or low-cost services, free transport for appointments, longer consultation hours, patient advocacy and use of gender-sensitive providers. These improved affordability, appropriateness and acceptability of the services. Training in cultural sensitivity and appropriate use of interpreters was associated with improved quality of care. Coordination between health and social services improved with case management by a specialised worker and team based primary health care. Implications: Taken together, these comprise the key components of an Australian model of refugee care including workforce planning and training. The next stage of our research examines the feasibility and acceptability of these strategies with stakeholders.