Search

Abstract Background Migrants to the UK face disproportionate risk of infections, non-communicable diseases, and under-immunisation compounded by healthcare access barriers. Current UK migrant screening strategies are unstandardised with poor implementation and low uptake. Health Catch-UP! is a collaboratively produced digital clinical decision support system that applies current guidelines (UKHSA and NICE) to provide primary care professionals with individualised multi-disease screening (7 infectious diseases/blood-borne viruses, 3 chronic parasitic infections, 3 non-communicable disease or risk factors) and catch-up vaccination prompts for migrant patients. Methods We carried out a mixed-methods process evaluation of Health Catch-UP! in two urban primary healthcare practices to integrate Health Catch-UP! into the electronic health record system of primary care, using the Medical Research Council framework for complex intervention evaluation. We collected quantitative data (demographics, patients screened, disease detection and catch-up vaccination rates) and qualitative participant interviews to explore acceptability and feasibility. Results Ninety-nine migrants were assessed by Health Catch-UP! across two sites (S1, S2). 96.0% (n = 97) had complete demographics coding with Asia 31.3% (n = 31) and Africa 25.2% (n = 25), the most common continents of birth (S1 n = 92 [48.9% female (n = 44); mean age 60.6 years (SD 14.26)]; and S2 n = 7 [85.7% male (n = 6); mean age 39.4 years (SD16.97)]. 61.6% (n = 61) of participants were eligible for screening for at least one condition and uptake of screening was high 86.9% (n = 53). Twelve new conditions were identified (12.1% of study population) including hepatitis C (n = 1), hypercholesteraemia (n = 6), pre-diabetes (n = 4), and diabetes (n = 1). Health Catch-UP! identified that 100% (n = 99) of patients had no immunisations recorded; however, subsequent catch-up vaccination uptake was poor (2.0%, n = 1). Qualitative data supported acceptability and feasibility of Health Catch-UP! from staff and patient perspectives, and recommended Health Catch-UP! integration into routine care (e.g. NHS health checks) with an implementation package including staff and patient support materials, standardised care pathways (screening and catch-up vaccination, laboratory, and management), and financial incentivisation. Conclusions Clinical Decision Support Systems like Health Catch-UP! can improve disease detection and implementation of screening guidance for migrant patients but require robust testing, resourcing, and an effective implementation package to support both patients and staff.

Abstract Background Migrants in the UK and Europe face vulnerability to vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) due to missed childhood vaccines and doses and marginalisation from health systems. Ensuring migrants receive catch-up vaccinations, including MMR, Td/IPV, MenACWY, and HPV, is essential to align them with UK and European vaccination schedules and ultimately reduce morbidity and mortality. However, recent evidence highlights poor awareness and implementation of catch-up vaccination guidelines by UK primary care staff, requiring novel approaches to strengthen the primary care pathway. Methods The ‘Vacc on Track’ study (May 2021–September 2022) aimed to measure under-vaccination rates among migrants in UK primary care and establish new referral pathways for catch-up vaccination. Participants included migrants aged 16 or older, born outside of Western Europe, North America, Australia, or New Zealand, in two London boroughs. Quantitative data on vaccination history, referral, uptake, and sociodemographic factors were collected, with practice nurses prompted to deliver catch-up vaccinations following UK guidelines. Focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with staff and migrants explored views on delivering catch-up vaccination, including barriers, facilitators, and opportunities. Data were analysed using STATA12 and NVivo 12. Results Results from 57 migrants presenting to study sites from 18 countries (mean age 41 [SD 7.2] years; 62% female; mean 11.3 [SD 9.1] years in UK) over a minimum of 6 months of follow-up revealed significant catch-up vaccination needs, particularly for MMR (49 [86%] required catch-up vaccination) and Td/IPV (50 [88%]). Fifty-three (93%) participants were referred for any catch-up vaccination, but completion of courses was low (6 [12%] for Td/IPV and 33 [64%] for MMR), suggesting individual and systemic barriers. Qualitative in-depth interviews (n = 39) with adult migrants highlighted the lack of systems currently in place in the UK to offer catch-up vaccination to migrants on arrival and the need for health-care provider skills and knowledge of catch-up vaccination to be improved. Focus group discussions and interviews with practice staff (n = 32) identified limited appointment/follow-up time, staff knowledge gaps, inadequate engagement routes, and low incentivisation as challenges that will need to be addressed. However, they underscored the potential of staff champions, trust-building mechanisms, and community-based approaches to strengthen catch-up vaccination uptake among migrants. Conclusions Given the significant catch-up vaccination needs of migrants in our sample, and the current barriers to driving uptake identified, our findings suggest it will be important to explore this public health issue further, potentially through a larger study or trial. Strengthening existing pathways, staff capacity and knowledge in primary care, alongside implementing new strategies centred on cultural competence and building trust with migrant communities will be important focus areas.

Summary: Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a critical global health concern. A previous systematic review showed that migrants in Europe are at increased risk of AMR. Since the COVID-19 pandemic there have been rapid changes in patterns of antibiotic use, AMR, and migration. We aimed to present an updated evidence synthesis on the current distribution of AMR among migrants in Europe. Methods: We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022343263). We searched databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed and Scopus) from 18 January 2017 until 18 January 2023 to identify primary data from observational studies reporting any laboratory-confirmed AMR among migrants in the European Economic Area (EEA) and European Union-15 (EU-15) countries using over 7 key search terms for migrants and over 70 terms for AMR and countries in Europe. Outcomes were infection with, or colonisation of AMR bacteria. Methodological quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Observational Studies. We meta-analysed the pooled-prevalence of infection and/or colonisation of AMR organisms. Findings: Among 630 articles, 21 observational studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. The pooled prevalence for any detected AMR was 28.0% (95% CI 18.0%–41.0%, I2 = 100%) compared to a 25.4% seen in the previous review; gram-negative bacteria 31.0% (95% CI 20.0%–44.0%, I2 = 100%), and methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus 10.0% (95% CI 5.0%–16.0%, I2 = 99%). Drug-resistant bacteria were more prevalent in community settings in large migrant populations (pooled prevalence: 41.0%, 95% CI 24.0%–60.0%, I2 = 99%) than in hospitals (21.0%, 95% CI 12.0%–32.0%, I2 = 99%). AMR estimates in ‘other’ migrants were 32.0%, (95% CI 12.0%–57.0%, I2 = 100%) and 28.0% (95% CI 18.0%–38.0%, I2 = 100%) in forced migrants. No firm evidence of AMR acquisition with arrival time or length of stay in the host country was found. Interpretation: Studies investigating AMR in migrants are highly heterogenous. However, since the COVID-19 pandemic, migrants may be at higher risk of acquiring resistant bacteria, particularly gram-negative bacteria, within community settings such as refugee camps and detention centres in Europe. Our study highlights the importance of infrastructure and hygiene measures within these settings, to mitigate transmission of resistant pathogens. Policy-makers should screen for AMR in migrants prior to departure from countries of origin, where feasible, and upon arrival to a new country to ensure optimal health screening, infection control and effective treatment. Funding: There was no funding source for this study.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic prompted tens of thousands of people worldwide to migrate from cities in its early stages, leading to an increased spread of the virus. Understanding the factors driving relocation during a pandemic is crucial for effective outbreak control. We investigated how the pandemic influenced people’s aspirations and preparations to move, both domestically and internationally, surveying individuals in Greece, India, Italy, Kenya, Nigeria, Portugal, Serbia, Spain, and the United States of America. Out of 4448 eligible responses, 765 participants (17.2%) had a strong aspiration to move due to COVID-19, and 155 (3.5%) had already prepared. Those considering relocation were statistically significantly more likely to perceive moving to an area with fewer COVID-19 cases as protective against the virus (OR = 1.3, p < 0.05) or to know others who intended to relocate because of COVID-19 (OR = 1.5, p < 0.05). Conversely, a strong sense of being ‘at home’ reduced statistically significantly the strength of mobility aspirations (OR = 0.7, p < 0.01). Social alienation, social imitation, and the perceived efficacy of mobility increased aspirations to move due to COVID-19. This study emphasizes the rapid population movements at pandemic onset and their potential contribution to disease transmission, urging future pandemic planning to take account of such mobility dynamics.

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.

Abstract Introduction Disparities in the uptake of routine and COVID‐19 vaccinations have been observed in migrant populations, and attributed to issues of mistrust, access and low vaccine confidence. Participatory research approaches and behaviour change theory hold the potential for developing tailored vaccination interventions that address these complex barriers in partnership with communities and should be explored further. Methods This study used a theory‐informed, community‐based participatory research approach to co‐design a culturally tailored behaviour change intervention aimed at increasing COVID‐19 vaccine uptake among Congolese migrants in London, United Kingdom (2021–2022). It was designed and led by a community‐academic partnership in response to unmet needs in the Congolese community as the COVID‐19 pandemic started. Barriers and facilitators to COVID‐19 vaccination, information and communication preferences, and intervention suggestions were explored through qualitative in‐depth interviews with Congolese migrants, thematically analysed, and mapped to the theoretical domains framework (TDF) and the capability, opportunity, motivation, behaviour model to identify target behaviours and strategies to include in interventions. Interventions were co‐designed and tailored in workshops involving Congolese migrants. Results Thirty‐two Congolese adult migrants (24 (75%) women, mean 14.3 (SD: 7.5) years in the United Kingdom, mean age 52.6 (SD: 11.0) years) took part in in‐depth interviews and 16 (same sample) took part in co‐design workshops. Fourteen barriers and 10 facilitators to COVID‐19 vaccination were identified; most barrier data related to four TDF domains (beliefs about consequences; emotion; social influences and environmental context and resources), and the behavioural diagnosis concluded interventions should target improving psychological capability, reflective and automatic motivations and social opportunities. Strategies included culturally tailored behaviour change techniques based on education, persuasion, modelling, enablement and environmental restructuring, which resulted in a co‐designed intervention comprising community‐led workshops, plays and posters. Findings and interventions were disseminated through a community celebration event. Conclusions Our study demonstrates how behavioural theory can be applied to co‐designing tailored interventions with underserved migrant communities through a participatory research paradigm to address a range of health issues and inequalities. Future research should build on this empowering approach, with the goal of developing more sensitive vaccination services and interventions which respond to migrant communities' unique cultural needs and realities. Patient or Public Contribution Patient and public involvement (PPI) were embedded in the participatory study design and approach, with community members co‐producing all stages of the study and co‐authoring this paper. An independent PPI board (St George's Migrant Health Research Group Patient and Public Involvement Advisory Board) comprising five adult migrants with lived experience of accessing healthcare in the United Kingdom were also consulted at significant points over the course of the study.

The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately impacted intersectionally marginalised migrants, revealing systemic disparities in health outcomes and vaccine uptake. Understanding the underlying social and structural factors influencing health behaviours is necessary to develop tailored interventions for migrants, but these factors have been seldom explored. This qualitative study aimed to explore contextual factors shaping COVID-19 vaccination decision-making among Congolese migrants in the UK.A community-based participatory research study was designed and led by a community-academic partnership in London, UK (2021-2022). Peer-led, semi-structured interviews were conducted in Lingala with 32 adult Congolese migrants and explored beliefs, perceptions and lived experiences of migration, healthcare, vaccination and the COVID-19 pandemic. Reflexive thematic analysis generated two themes and a model conceptualising the vaccination decision-making process. Participants and community partners were financially compensated; ethics was granted by the University of London ethics committee (REC: 2021.0128).Participants highlighted the incompatibility of lockdown restrictions with their communal culture, which intensified feelings of exclusion and alienation. Concerns about COVID-19 vaccination were attributed to safety and effectiveness, partly informed by experiences and legacies of racial discrimination and exploitation. Inequality in the pandemic response and COVID-19 outcomes heightened participants' sense that their views and needs were being overlooked, and government sources and information were perceived as coercive. Our model depicts the interplay between institutional trust, belonging, and message perception, which shaped participants' vaccination decisions and led to (non-)engagement with COVID-19 vaccination. This research enhances understanding of how social and contextual factors may influence migrants' engagement with health interventions. It underscores the importance of partnering with migrant communities to understand their needs in context and co-design tailored interventions and inclusive messaging strategies that promote trust and belonging. Implementing systemic changes to address structural inequalities will be crucial to create an environment that supports engagement with health-protective behaviours and enhances health outcomes among migrant communities.

Low vaginal self-sampling has been pioneered as an important development to improve uptake of cervical screening globally. Limited research is available in specific patient groups in the UK exploring views around self-sampling to detect high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) DNA. Therefore, we explored patient views to support development of a novel point-of-care self-sampling cervical cancer screening device, by undertaking a cross-sectional semi-structured questionnaire survey to explore preferences, acceptability, barriers and facilitators around self-sampling. Patients attending a colposcopy clinic, 25-64 years old, were invited to participate after having carried out a low vaginal self-sample using a regular flocked swab. Participants self-completed an anonymous 12-point questionnaire. Quantitative data were analysed in MS Excel and Graphpad Prism, and qualitative data with Nvivo. We recruited 274 patients with a questionnaire response rate of 76%. Acceptability of self-sampling was high (95%, n = 187/197; Cronbachs-α = 0.778). Participants were asked their choice of future screening method: a) low vaginal self-sampling, b) healthcare professional collected vaginal swab, c) cervical brush sample with healthcare professional speculum examination, or d) no preference. Preferences were: a) 37% (n = 74/198), b) 19% (n = 37/198); c) 9% (n = 17/198), and d) 35% (n = 70/198), showing no single option as a strong preference. Key motivators were: Test simplicity (90%, n = 170/190), speed (81%, n = 153/190) and less pain (65%, n = 123/190). Barriers included lack of confidence taking the sample (53%, n = 10/19), resulting in preference for a healthcare professional sample (47%, n = 9/19). Whilst self-sampling showed high acceptability, lack of strong preference for screening method may reflect that respondents attending colposcopy are already engaged with screening and have differing perception of cervical cancer risk. This group appear less likely to 'switch' to self-sampling, and it may be better targeted within primary and community care, focusing on under-screened populations. Any shift in this paradigm in the UK requires comprehensive education and support for patients and providers.

IntroductionVaccination during pregnancy protects both the mother and the foetus from vaccine-preventable diseases. However, uptake of the recommended vaccines (influenza, pertussis, COVID-19) by pregnant women remains low in Europe and the USA. Understanding the reasons for this is crucial to inform strategies to increase vaccination rates in pregnant women. This qualitative systematic review aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators to vaccination against influenza, pertussis/whooping cough and COVID-19 during pregnancy and identify possible strategies to increase vaccination rates.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases, including Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, WHO database, Embase and grey literature to identify qualitative studies that explored barriers and facilitators to vaccine uptake among pregnant women (PROSPERO CRD42023399488). The search was limited to studies published between 2012 and 2022 conducted in high-income countries with established vaccination programmes during pregnancy. Studies were thematically analysed and underwent quality assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute validated critical appraisal tool for qualitative research.ResultsOut of 2681 articles screened, 28 studies (n = 1573 participants) were eligible for inclusion. Five overarching themes emerged relating to personal, provider and systemic factors. Barriers to vaccine uptake included concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, lack of knowledge about vaccines' benefits and necessity, fear of adverse effects on the foetus or mother and low perception of disease severity. Facilitators included recommendations from trusted healthcare providers, easy access to vaccination, clear communication on the benefits and safety of vaccination, and positive social influences from family and friends. Strategies for increasing vaccination uptake included strong and proactive vaccine recommendations by trusted healthcare professionals, provision of vaccines during routine antenatal care, and clear and consistent communication about vaccines addressing pregnant women's concerns.ConclusionThis review highlights the need for interventions that address the identified barriers to vaccine uptake among pregnant women. Recommendation from a healthcare provider can play a significant role in promoting vaccine uptake, as can clear risk/benefit communication and convenient access to vaccination. Addressing concerns about vaccine safety and providing accurate information about vaccines is also important.

Background: Vaccine preventable diseases (VPDs) such as measles and rubella cause significant morbidity and mortality globally every year. The World Health Organization (WHO), reported vaccine coverage for both measles and rubella to be 71 % in 2019, indicating an immunity gap. Migrants in the EU/EEA may be at high risk of VPDs due to under-immunisation and poor living conditions. However, there are limited data on VPD seroprotection rates amongst migrants living in the United Kingdom (UK). Methods: We conducted an exploratory cross-sectional serosurvey amongst a sample of adult migrants living in Leicester, UK to: (a) determine seroprotection rates for measles, varicella zoster, and rubella in this group; (b) identify risk factors associated with seronegativity and, (c) understand if self-reported vaccine or diseases history is an effective measure of seroprotection. Participants gave a blood sample and completed a questionnaire asking basic demographic details and vaccine and disease history for the three VPDs. We summarised the data using median and interquartile range (IQR) for non-parametric continuous variables and count and percentage for categorical variables. We used logistic regression to establish predictors of seroprotection against these diseases. We examined the reliability of self-reported vaccination/disease history for prediction of seroprotection through a concordance analysis. Results: 149 migrants were included in the analysis. Seroprotection rates were: varicella zoster 98 %, rubella 92.6 % and measles 89.3 %. Increasing age was associated with seroprotection (OR 1.07 95 % CI 1.01–1.13 for each year increase in age). Migrants from Africa and the Middle East (aOR 15.16 95 % CI 1.31 - 175.06) and South/East Asia and Pacific regions (aOR 15.43 95 %CI 2.38 - 100.00) are significantly more likely to be seroprotected against measles as compared to migrants from Europe and Central Asia. The proportions of migrants unsure about their vaccination and disease history combined were 53.0 % for measles; 57.7 % for rubella; 43.0 % for varicella. There was no agreement between self-reported vaccination/disease history and serostatus. Conclusion: Our findings suggest lower levels of seroprotection against measles in migrants living in Leicester, UK, with younger migrants and those from Europe and Central Asia more likely to lack seroprotection. A high proportion of surveyed migrants were unaware of their vaccination/disease history and self-reported vaccine/disease was a poor predictor of seroprotection against VPDs which is important for clinical decision-making regarding catch-up vaccination in this population. Our results, although derived from a small sample, suggest that there may be gaps in seroimmunity for certain VPDs in particular migrant populations. These findings should inform future qualitative studies investigating barriers to vaccine uptake in migrants and population-level seroprevalence studies aimed at determining individualised risk profiles based on demographic and migration factors.

Background: Migrants in Europe face a disproportionate burden of undiagnosed infection, including tuberculosis, blood-borne viruses, and parasitic infections and many belong to an under-immunised group. The European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC) has called for innovative strategies to deliver integrated multi-disease screening to migrants within primary care, yet this is poorly implemented in the UK. We did an in-depth qualitative study to understand current practice, barriers and solutions to infectious disease screening in primary care, and to seek feedback on a collaboratively developed digitalised integrated clinical decision-making tool called Health Catch UP!, which supports multi-infection screening for migrant patients. Methods: Two-phase qualitative study of UK primary healthcare professionals, in-depth semi-structured telephone-interviews were conducted. In Phase A, we conducted interviews with clinical staff (general practitioners (GPs), nurses, health-care-assistants (HCAs)); these informed data collection and analysis for phase B (administrative staff). Data were analysed iteratively, using thematic analysis. Results: In phase A, 48 clinicians were recruited (25 GPs, 15 nurses, seven HCAs, one pharmacist) and 16 administrative staff (11 Practice-Managers, five receptionists) in phase B. Respondents were positive about primary care's ability to effectively deliver infectious disease screening. However, we found current infectious disease screening lacks a standardised approach and many practices have no system for screening meaning migrant patients are not always receiving evidence-based care (i.e., NICE/ECDC/UKHSA screening guidelines). Barriers to screening were reported at patient, staff, and system-levels. Respondents reported poor implementation of existing screening initiatives (e.g., regional latent TB screening) citing overly complex pathways that required extensive administrative/clinical time and lacked financial/expert support. Solutions included patient/staff infectious disease champions, targeted training and specialist support, simplified care pathways for screening and management of positive results, and financial incentivisation. Participants responded positively to Health Catch-UP!, stating it would systematically integrate data and support clinical decision-making, increase knowledge, reduce missed screening opportunities, and normalisation of primary care-based infectious disease screening for migrants. Conclusions: Our results suggest that implementation of infectious disease screening in migrant populations is not comprehensively done in UK primary care. Primary health care professionals support the concept of innovative digital tools like Health Catch-UP! and that they could significantly improve disease detection and effective implementation of screening guidance but that they require robust testing and resourcing.

Introduction Migrants positively contribute to host societies yet experience barriers to health and vaccination services and systems and are considered to be an underimmunised group in many European countries. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted stark inequities in vaccine uptake, with migrants facing access and informational barriers and lower vaccine confidence. A key challenge, therefore, is developing tailored vaccination interventions, services and systems which account for and respond to the unique drivers of vaccine uptake in different migrant populations. Participatory research approaches, which meaningfully involve communities in co-constructing knowledge and solutions, have generated considerable interest in recent years for those tasked with designing and delivering public health interventions. How such approaches can be used to strengthen initiatives for COVID-19 and routine vaccination merits greater consideration.Methods and analysis LISOLO MALAMU (‘Good Talk’) is a community-based participatory research study which uses qualitative and coproduction methodologies to involve adult Congolese migrants in developing a tailored intervention to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Led by a community–academic coalition, the study will involve (1) semistructured in-depth interviews with adult Congolese migrants (born in Democratic Republic of Congo, >18 years), (2) interviews with professional stakeholders and (3) codesign workshops with adult Congolese migrants. Qualitative data will be analysed collaboratively using reflexive thematic analysis, and behaviour change theory will be used in parallel to support the coproduction of interventions and make recommendations across socioecological levels. The study will run from approximately November 2021 to November 2022.Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval was granted by the St George’s University Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 2021.0128). Study findings will be disseminated to a range of local, national and international audiences, and a community celebration event will be held to show impact and recognise contributions. Recommendations for implementation and evaluation of prototyped interventions will be made.

Objectives Some migrant groups are disproportionately affected by key infectious diseases in European countries. These pose a challenge for healthcare systems providing care to these groups. We aimed to explore the views of general practitioners (GPs) on the acceptability, adaptability and feasibility of a multidisease screening programme based on an innovative clinical decision-support system for migrants (the ISMiHealth tool), by examining the current gaps in healthcare provision and areas of good practice and the usefulness and limitations of training in the health needs of migrants.Methods We undertook a qualitative descriptive study and carried out a series of focus groups (FGs) taking a pragmatic utilitarian approach. Participants were GPs from the four primary healthcare (PHC) centres in Catalonia, Spain, that piloted an intervention of the ISMiHealth tool. GPs were recruited using purposive and convenience sampling. FG discussions were transcribed and analysed using thematic content analysis.Results A total of 29 GPs participated in four FGs. Key themes identified were: (1) GPs found the ISMiHealth tool to be very useful for helping to identify specific health problems in migrants, although there are several additional barriers to screening as part of PHC, (2) the importance of considering cultural perspectives when caring for migrants, and of the impact of migration on mental health, (3) the important role of PHC in healthcare provision for migrants and (4) key proposals to improve screening of migrant populations. GPs also highlighted the urgent need, to shift to a more holistic and adequately resourced approach to healthcare in PHC.Conclusions GPs supported a multidisease screening programme for migrant populations using the ISMiHealth tool, which aided clinical decision-making. However, intercultural participatory approaches will need to be adopted to address linguistic and cultural barriers to healthcare access that exist in migrant communities.

Objective Migrants and ethnic minority groups have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 and have lower levels of vaccine uptake in some contexts. We aimed to determine the extent and nature of social media use in migrant and ethnic minority communities for COVID-19 information, and implications for preventative health measures including vaccination intent and uptake.Design A systematic review of published and grey literature following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched databases including Embase, Web of Science, PubMed NIH, CINAHL, facilitated through the WHO Global Research on COVID-19 database from 31 December 2019 to 9 June 2021.Eligibility criteria for study selection Research reporting the use of social media by migrants and/or ethnic minority groups in relation to COVID-19.Data extraction We extracted data on key outcomes, study design, country, population under study and sample size.Results 1849 unique records were screened, and 21 data sources were included, including populations in the UK, USA, China, Jordan, Qatar and Turkey. We found evidence of consistent use of a range of social media platforms for COVID-19 information in some migrant and ethnic minority populations (including WeChat, Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube), which may stem from difficulty in accessing COVID-19 information in their native languages or from trusted sources. Some evidence suggested circulating misinformation and social media use may be associated with lower participation in preventative health measures, including vaccine intent and uptake, findings which are likely relevant to multiple population groups.Conclusions Social media platforms are an important source of information about COVID-19 for some migrant and ethnic minority populations. Urgent actions and further research are now needed to better understand effective approaches to tackling circulating misinformation, and to seize on opportunities to better use social media platforms to support public health communication and improve vaccine uptake.Registration This study has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021259190).

Objectives Explore primary care professionals’ views around barriers/facilitators to catch-up vaccination in adult migrants (foreign-born; over 18 years of age) with incomplete/uncertain vaccination status and for routine vaccines to inform development of interventions to improve vaccine uptake and coverage.Design Qualitative interview study with purposive sampling and thematic analysis.Setting UK primary care.Participants 64 primary care professionals (PCPs): 48 clinical-staff including general practitioners, practice nurses and healthcare assistants; 16 administrative-staff including practice managers and receptionists (mean age 45 years; 84.4% women; a range of ethnicities).Results Participants highlighted direct and indirect barriers to catch-up vaccines in adult migrants who may have missed vaccines as children, missed boosters and not be aligned with the UK’s vaccine schedule, from both personal and service-delivery levels, with themes including: lack of training and knowledge of guidance among staff; unclear or incomplete vaccine records; and lack of incentivisation (including financial) and dedicated time and care pathways. Adult migrants were reported as being excluded from many vaccination initiatives, most of which focus exclusively on children. Where delivery models existed, they were diverse and fragmented, but included a combination of opportunistic and proactive programmes. PCPs noted that migrants expressed to them a range of views around vaccines, from positivity to uncertainty, to refusal, with specific nationality groups reported as more hesitant about specific vaccines, including measles, mumps and rubella (MMR).Conclusions WHO’s new Immunization Agenda 2030 calls for greater focus to be placed on delivering vaccination across the life course, targeting underimmunised groups for catch-up vaccination at any age, and UK primary care services therefore have a key role. Vaccine uptake in adult migrants could be improved through implementing new financial incentives or inclusion of adult migrant vaccination targets in Quality Outcomes Framework, strengthening care pathways and training and working directly with local community-groups to improve understanding around the benefits of vaccination at all ages.

Objective Analysis of participatory approaches to developing health interventions for migrants and how approaches embody core participatory principles of inclusivity and democracy.Design A systematic review of original articles. Electronic searches within the databases MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health and PsychINFO (from inception—November 2020).Eligibility criteria for study selection Original peer-reviewed articles reporting research to develop and implement a health intervention for migrants, incorporating participatory approaches. We defined migrants as foreign-born individuals. Only articles reporting the full research cycle (inception, design, implementation, analysis, evaluation, dissemination) were included.Data extraction We extracted information related to who was involved in research (migrants or other non-academic stakeholders), the research stage at which they were involved (inception, design, implementation, analysis, evaluation, dissemination), the method of their involvement and how this aligned with the core principles of participatory research—categorising studies as exhibiting active or pseudo (including proxy and indirect) participation.Results 1793 publications were screened, of which 28 were included in our analysis. We found substantial variation in the application of participatory approaches in designing health interventions targeting migrants: across 168 individual research stages analysed across the 28 studies, we recorded 46 instances of active participation of migrants, 30 instances of proxy participation and 24 instances of indirect participation. All studies involved non-academic stakeholders in at least one stage of the research, only two studies exhibited evidence of active participation of migrants across all research stages. Evidence is limited due to the variability of terms and approaches used.Conclusions Important shortfalls in the meaningful inclusion of migrants in developing health interventions exist, suggesting a more rigorous and standardised approach is warranted to better define and deliver participatory research and improve quality.Registration This review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines and is registered on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/2bnz5).

Background: Migrants globally, including refugees and asylum seekers, have experienced adverse clinical and socioeconomic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. For approximately 56,000 refugees and asylum seekers in Reception and Identification Centers (RICs) and Reception Sites (RS) in Greece, living in severely substandard living conditions, prevention measures have been impossible with limited provision in terms of routine testing, surveillance, and access to healthcare. These migrant populations have experienced prolonged lockdowns and restricted movement since the pandemic began. We aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on refugees and asylum seekers in reception facilities in Greece and explore implications for policy and practice. Methods: A retrospective analysis of policy documents and national surveillance data was conducted to identify COVID-19 outbreaks and estimate incidence among asylum seekers and refugees residing in these camps during the first 9 months of the epidemic in Greece (26th February – 15th November 2020). Incidence proportion (IP) of COVID-19 confirmed cases was calculated for three population groups (refugees and asylum seekers in RICs, refugees and asylum seekers in RSs, and the general population in Greece) during three time periods (first wave, second wave, and overall across the 9-month period). Findings: Twenty-five COVID-19 outbreaks were identified in refugee and asylum seeker reception facilities, with 6 (85.7%) of 7 RICs and 18 (56.3%) of 32 RSs reporting at least one outbreak during the study period. The overall 9-month COVID-19 IP among refugee and asylum seeker populations residing in RSs on the Greek mainland was 1758 cases per 100,000 population; in RICs the incidence was 2052 cases per 100,000 population. Compared to the general population the risk of COVID-19 infection among refugees and asylum seekers in reception facilities was 2.5 to 3 times higher (p-value

Background: Migrants in high-income countries may be at increased risk of COVID-19 due to their health and social circumstances, yet the extent to which they are affected and their predisposing risk factors are not clearly understood. We did a systematic review to assess clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in migrant populations, indirect health and social impacts, and to determine key risk factors. Methods: We did a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO CRD42020222135). We searched multiple databases to 18/11/2020 for peer-reviewed and grey literature on migrants (foreign-born) and COVID-19 in 82 high-income countries. We used our international networks to source national datasets and grey literature. Data were extracted on primary outcomes (cases, hospitalisations, deaths) and we evaluated secondary outcomes on indirect health and social impacts and risk factors using narrative synthesis. Results: 3016 data sources were screened with 158 from 15 countries included in the analysis (35 data sources for primary outcomes: cases [21], hospitalisations [4]; deaths [15]; 123 for secondary outcomes). We found that migrants are at increased risk of infection and are disproportionately represented among COVID-19 cases. Available datasets suggest a similarly disproportionate representation of migrants in reported COVID-19 deaths, as well as increased all-cause mortality in migrants in some countries in 2020. Undocumented migrants, migrant health and care workers, and migrants housed in camps have been especially affected. Migrants experience risk factors including high-risk occupations, overcrowded accommodation, and barriers to healthcare including inadequate information, language barriers, and reduced entitlement. Conclusions: Migrants in high-income countries are at high risk of exposure to, and infection with, COVID-19. These data are of immediate relevance to national public health and policy responses to the pandemic. Robust data on testing uptake and clinical outcomes in migrants, and barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccination, are urgently needed, alongside strengthening engagement with diverse migrant groups.

Introduction: Early evidence confirms lower COVID-19 vaccine uptake in established ethnic minority populations, yet there has been little focus on understanding vaccine hesitancy and barriers to vaccination in migrants. Growing populations of precarious migrants (including undocumented migrants, asylum seekers and refugees) in the UK and Europe are considered to be under-immunised groups and may be excluded from health systems, yet little is known about their views on COVID-19 vaccines specifically, which are essential to identify key solutions and action points to strengthen vaccine roll-out. Methods: We did an in-depth semi-structured qualitative interview study of recently arrived migrants (foreign-born, >18 years old;

Abstract The 2015–2017 global migratory crisis saw unprecedented numbers of people on the move and tremendous diversity in terms of age, gender and medical requirements. This article focuses on key emerging public health issues around migrant populations and their interactions with host populations. Basic needs and rights of migrants and refugees are not always respected in regard to article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 23 of the Refugee Convention. These are populations with varying degrees of vulnerability and needs in terms of protection, security, rights, and access to healthcare. Their health status, initially conditioned by the situation at the point of origin, is often jeopardised by adverse conditions along migratory paths and in intermediate and final destination countries. Due to their condition, forcibly displaced migrants and refugees face a triple burden of non-communicable diseases, infectious diseases, and mental health issues. There are specific challenges regarding chronic infectious and neglected tropical diseases, for which awareness in host countries is imperative. Health risks in terms of susceptibility to, and dissemination of, infectious diseases are not unidirectional. The response, including the humanitarian effort, whose aim is to guarantee access to basic needs (food, water and sanitation, healthcare), is gripped with numerous challenges. Evaluation of current policy shows insufficiency regarding the provision of basic needs to migrant populations, even in the countries that do the most. Governments around the world need to rise to the occasion and adopt policies that guarantee universal health coverage, for migrants and refugees, as well as host populations, in accordance with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. An expert consultation was carried out in the form of a pre-conference workshop during the 4th International Conference on Prevention and Infection Control (ICPIC) in Geneva, Switzerland, on 20 June 2017, the United Nations World Refugee Day.

Objectives: Data on the impact of refugees on Intensive Care Units (ICUs) are lacking in the literature, in particular for community-acquired (CA) infectious diseases, for which they are known to be at higher risk. We did a descriptive, multicenter study to analyze CA infections among refugee patients requiring ICU admission. Methods: Inclusion criteria were adult refugee patients admitted to an ICU due to CA infections. Anonymized data were collected between January 1, 2010 and December 30, 2015 across 10 referral centers. Results: 29.885 patients were admitted to the ICUs in the study period. 37 patients were included the study, the majority were from Syria (n = 31, 83.8%). Mean (SD) age of the patients was 45.92 ± 20.16 years. The 5-year prevalence rate was 123.8 per 100.000 patients in the ICUs. All patients had at least one comorbid condition. Forty-nine CA infections were diagnosed. The most common CA infection was pneumonia (49%) followed by urinary-tract infections (16.3%). 21 patients (56.7%) hospitalized in the ICU had trauma history. Mortality rate was high at 22 patients (59.5%) with 5 (22.7%) deaths directly attributed to CA infections. Conclusions: Refugees presented to ICUs with CA infections similar to the host populations (pneumonia and urinary-tract infections) but had high mortality rates (59.5%). It seems that Turkish ICUs were not congested with the refugee patients’ influx for CA infections. More research needs to be done to better understand how to deliver preventative and timely health care services to this group of patients.

Summary: Background: Globally, there are more than 150 million international migrant workers—individuals who are employed outside of their country of origin—comprising the largest international migrant group. A substantial number of migrants work in hazardous and exploitative environments, where they might be at considerable risk of injury and ill health. However, little data on occupational health outcomes of migrant workers exist, with which to inform global policy making and delivery of health services. Methods: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Embase, MEDLINE, Ovid Global Health, and PsychINFO databases for primary research published between Jan 1, 2008, and Jan 24, 2018, reporting occupational health outcomes among international migrant workers (defined as individuals who are or have been employed outside their country of origin), without language or geographical restrictions. We excluded studies containing mixed cohorts of migrants and native workers in which migrant data could not be disaggregated, and studies that did not explicitly report migrant status. The main outcome was prevalence of occupational health outcomes (defined as any injury, mortality, or physical or psychiatric morbidity due to an individual's work or workplace environment) among international migrant workers. Summary estimates were calculated using random-effects models. The study protocol has been registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018099465. Findings: Of the 1218 studies identified by our search, 36 studies were included in our systematic review, and 18 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The systematic review included occupational health outcomes for 12 168 international migrant workers employed in 13 countries and territories, mostly employed in unskilled manual labour. Migrant workers originated from 25 low-income and middle-income countries, and worked in the following sectors: agriculture; domestic, retail, and service sectors; construction and trade; and manufacturing and processing. Migrant workers had various psychiatric and physical morbidities, and workplace accidents and injuries were relatively common. In the meta-analysis, among 7260 international migrant workers, the pooled prevalence of having at least one occupational morbidity was 47% (95% CI 29–64; I2=99·70%). Among 3890 migrant workers, the prevalence of having at least one injury or accident, including falls from heights, fractures and dislocations, ocular injuries, and cuts was 22% (7–37; I2=99·35%). Interpretation: International migrant workers are at considerable risk of work-related ill health and injury, and their health needs are critically overlooked in research and policy. Governments, policy makers, and businesses must enforce and improve occupational health and safety measures, which should be accompanied by accessible, affordable, and appropriate health care and insurance coverage to meet the care needs of this important working population. Funding: Wellcome Trust.

Migration and displacement are pivotal determinants of urban health, influencing both direct and indirect health outcomes. Migrants may face unique health risks, often exacerbated by economic, social, and environmental factors encountered during transit or upon resettlement. As migration patterns shift due to geopolitical, climatic, and economic pressures, they reshape the global and urban policy landscapes in unpredictable ways, presenting challenges that will continue to evolve in the coming decades. Current legal frameworks, in many cases, do not adequately account for migrant populations, hindering policy responses and complicating the protection of migrant health. Therefore, effective urban health interventions must be inclusive of migrant populations and expand beyond healthcare services. A systems-thinking approach that recognizes the broader determinants of health—including housing, employment, social services, and urban infrastructure—is essential to address the intersecting challenges migrants face. Despite these challenges, migration remains crucial to the functioning of urban environments. Migrant workers consistently contribute to the healthy operation of cities, underpinning key infrastructure and services. However, to optimize policy responses and improve urban health outcomes, more robust data and evidence on the health risks and outcomes of migrants, as well as the structural drivers of migration, are needed. Moreover, macro factors such as climate change, future pandemics, and geopolitical shifts are likely to influence both migration dynamics and migrant health. To anticipate and respond to these evolving challenges, a systems-informed and holistic vision of urban health is required—one that integrates migration into the broader urban policy and planning frameworks to foster healthier, more resilient cities.

Migration to Europe - and in particular the UK - has risen dramatically in the past decades, with implications for public health services. Migrants have increased vulnerability to infectious diseases (70% of TB cases and 60% HIV cases are in migrants) and face multiple barriers to healthcare. There is currently considerable debate as to the optimum approach to infectious disease screening in this often hard-to-reach group, and an urgent need for innovative approaches. Little research has focused on the specific experience of new migrants, nor sought their views on ways forward. We undertook a qualitative semi-structured interview study of migrant community health-care leads representing dominant new migrant groups in London, UK, to explore their views around barriers to screening, acceptability of screening, and innovative approaches to screening for four key diseases (HIV, TB, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C). Participants unanimously agreed that current screening models are not perceived to be widely accessible to new migrant communities. Dominant barriers that discourage uptake of screening include disease-related stigma present in their own communities and services being perceived as non-migrant friendly. New migrants are likely to be disproportionately affected by these barriers, with implications for health status. Screening is certainly acceptable to new migrants, however, services need to be developed to become more community-based, proactive, and to work more closely with community organisations; findings that mirror the views of migrants and health-care providers in Europe and internationally. Awareness raising about the benefits of screening within new migrant communities is critical. One innovative approach proposed by participants is a community-based package of health screening combining all key diseases into one general health check-up, to lessen the associated stigma. Further research is needed to develop evidence-based community-focused screening models - drawing on models of best practice from other countries receiving high numbers of migrants.

INTRODUCTION: Sepsis is one of the leading causes of childhood mortality, yet controversy surrounds the current treatment approach. We conducted a systematic review to assess the evidence base for fluid resuscitation in the treatment of children with shock due to sepsis or severe infection. METHODS: We searched 3 databases for randomized trials, quasi-randomized trials, and controlled before-after studies assessing children with septic shock in which at least one group was treated with bolus fluids. The primary outcome was mortality at 48 hours. Assessment of methodological quality followed the GRADE criteria. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated and data pooled using fixed-effects method. RESULTS: 13 studies met our inclusion criteria. No bolus has significantly better mortality outcomes at 48 hours for children with general septic shock (RR 0.69; 95%CI 0.54-0.89), and children with malaria (RR 0.64; 95%CI 0.45-0.91) when compared to giving any bolus. This result is largely driven by a single, high quality trial (the FEAST trial). There is no evidence investigating bolus vs no bolus in children with Dengue fever or severe malnutrition. Colloid and crystalloid boluses were found to have similar effects on mortality across all sub-groups (general septic shock, malaria, Dengue fever, and severe malnutrition). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of all randomized evidence to date comes from the FEAST trial, which found that fluid boluses were harmful compared to no bolus. Simple algorithms are needed to support health-care providers in the triage of patients to determine who could potentially be harmed by the provision of bolus fluids, and who will benefit.