Explore the vast range of titles available.

Understanding why some migrants in Europe are at risk of underimmunisation and show lower vaccination uptake for routine and COVID-19 vaccines is critical if we are to address vaccination inequities and meet the goals of WHO's new Immunisation Agenda 2030. We did a systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42020219214) exploring barriers and facilitators of vaccine uptake (categorised using the 5As taxonomy: access, awareness, affordability, acceptance, activation) and sociodemographic determinants of undervaccination among migrants in the EU and European Economic Area, the UK, and Switzerland. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from 2000 to 2021 for primary research, with no restrictions on language. 5259 data sources were screened, with 67 studies included from 16 countries, representing 366 529 migrants. We identified multiple access barriers—including language, literacy, and communication barriers, practical and legal barriers to accessing and delivering vaccination services, and service barriers such as lack of specific guidelines and knowledge of health-care professionals—for key vaccines including measles-mumps-rubella, diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus, human papillomavirus, influenza, polio, and COVID-19 vaccines. Acceptance barriers were mostly reported in eastern European and Muslim migrants for human papillomavirus, measles, and influenza vaccines. We identified 23 significant determinants of undervaccination in migrants (p<0·05), including African origin, recent migration, and being a refugee or asylum seeker. We did not identify a strong overall association with gender or age. Tailored vaccination messaging, community outreach, and behavioural nudges facilitated uptake. Migrants' barriers to accessing health care are already well documented, and this Review confirms their role in limiting vaccine uptake. These findings hold immediate relevance to strengthening vaccination programmes in high-income countries, including for COVID-19, and suggest that tailored, culturally sensitive, and evidence-informed strategies, unambiguous public health messaging, and health system strengthening are needed to address access and acceptance barriers to vaccination in migrants and create opportunities and pathways for offering catch-up vaccinations to migrants.

Migrant populations are one of several underimmunised groups in the EU or European Economic Area (EU/EEA), yet little is known about their involvement in outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. This information is vital to develop targeted strategies to improve the health of diverse migrant communities. We did a systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42019157473; Jan 1, 2000, to May 22, 2020) adhering to PRISMA guidelines, to identify studies on vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks (measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, polio, hepatitis A, varicella, Neisseria meningitidis, and Haemophilus influenzae) involving migrants residing in the EU/EEA and Switzerland. We identified 45 studies, reporting on 47 distinct vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks across 13 countries. Most reported outbreaks involving migrants were of measles (n=24; 6496 cases), followed by varicella (n=11; 505 cases), hepatitis A (n=7; 1356 cases), rubella (n=3; 487 cases), and mumps (n=2; 293 cases). 19 (40%) outbreaks, predominantly varicella and measles, were reported in temporary refugee camps or shelters. Of 11 varicella outbreaks, nine (82%) were associated with adult migrants. Half of measles outbreaks (n=11) were associated with migrants from eastern European countries. In conclusion, migrants are involved in vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks in Europe, with adult and child refugees residing in shelters or temporary camps at particular risk, alongside specific nationality groups. Vulnerability varies by disease, setting, and demographics, highlighting the importance of tailoring catch-up vaccination interventions to specific groups in order to meet regional and global vaccination targets as recommended by the new Immunisation Agenda 2030 framework for action. A better understanding of vaccine access and intent in migrant groups and a greater focus on co-designing interventions is urgently needed, with direct implications for COVID-19 vaccine delivery.

ObjectivesTuberculosis (TB) and mental illnesses are highly prevalent globally and often coexist. While poor mental health is known to modulate immune function, whether mental disorders play a causal role in TB incidence is unknown. This systematic review examines the association between mental health and TB disease risk to inform clinical and public health measures.DesignSystematic review, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.Search strategy and selection criteriaMEDLINE, PsycINFO and PsycEXTRA databases were searched alongside reference list and citation searching. Inclusion criteria were original research studies published 1 January 1970–11 May 2020 reporting data on the association between mental health and TB risk.Data extraction, appraisal and synthesisData were extracted on study design and setting, sample characteristics, measurement of mental illness and TB, and outcomes including effect size or prevalence. Studies were critically appraised using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) and Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS) checklists.Results1546 records published over 50 years were screened, resulting in 10 studies included reporting data from 607 184 individuals. Studies span across Asia, South America and Africa, and include mood and psychotic disorders. There is robust evidence from cohort studies in Asia demonstrating that depression and schizophrenia can increase risk of active TB, with effect estimates ranging from HR=1.15 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.28) to 2.63 (95% CI 1.74 to 3.96) for depression and HR=1.52 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.79) to RR=3.04 for schizophrenia. These data align with evidence from cross-sectional studies, for example, a large survey across low-income and middle-income countries (n=242 952) reports OR=3.68 (95% CI 3.01 to 4.50) for a depressive episode in those with TB symptoms versus those without.ConclusionsIndividuals with mental illnesses including depression and schizophrenia experience increased TB incidence and represent a high-risk population to target for screening and treatment. Integrated care for mental health and TB is needed, and interventions tackling mental illnesses and underlying drivers may help reduce TB incidence globally.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019158071.

ObjectiveAnalysis of participatory approaches to developing health interventions for migrants and how approaches embody core participatory principles of inclusivity and democracy.DesignA systematic review of original articles. Electronic searches within the databases MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health and PsychINFO (from inception—November 2020).Eligibility criteria for study selectionOriginal 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 extractionWe 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.Results1793 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.ConclusionsImportant 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.RegistrationThis review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines and is registered on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/2bnz5).

Background Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) is a growing concern in meeting global targets for TB control. In high-income low-TB-incidence countries, a disproportionate number of MDR-TB cases occur in migrant (foreign-born) populations, with concerns about low adherence rates in these patients compared to the host non-migrant population. Tackling MDR-TB in this context may, therefore, require unique approaches. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify and synthesise data on MDR-TB treatment adherence in migrant patients to inform evidence-based strategies to improve care pathways and health outcomes in this group. Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in line with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO 42017070756). The databases Embase, MEDLINE, Global Health and PubMed were searched to 24 May 2017 for primary research reporting MDR-TB treatment adherence and outcomes in migrant populations, with no restrictions on dates or language. A meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models. Results From 413 papers identified in the database search, 15 studies reporting on MDR-TB treatment outcomes for 258 migrants and 174 non-migrants were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The estimated rate of adherence to MDR-TB treatment across migrant patients was 71% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 58–84%], with non-adherence reported among 20% (95% CI = 4–37%) of migrant patients. A key finding was that there were no differences in estimated rates of adherence [risk ratio (RR) = 1.05; 95% CI = 0.82–1.34] or non-adherence (RR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.79–1.36) between migrants and non-migrants. Conclusions MDR-TB treatment adherence rates among migrants in high-income low-TB-incidence countries are approaching global targets for treatment success (75%), and are comparable to rates in non-migrants. The findings highlight that only just over 70% of migrant and non-migrant patients adhere to MDR-TB treatment. The results point to the importance of increasing adherence in all patient groups, including migrants, with an emphasis on tailoring care based on social risk factors for poor adherence. We believe that MDR-TB treatment targets are not ambitious enough.

Latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is one of the most prevalent infections globally and can lead to the development of active tuberculosis disease. In many low-burden countries, LTBI is concentrated within migrant populations often because of a higher disease burden in the migrant's country of origin. National programmes consequently focus on screening and treating LTBI in migrants to prevent future tuberculosis cases; however, how effective these programmes are is unclear. We aimed to assess LTBI treatment initiation and outcomes among migrants, and the factors that influence both. For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Embase, MEDLINE, and Global Health, and manually searched grey literature from Jan 1, 2000, to April 21, 2020. We included primary research articles reporting on LTBI treatment initiation or completion, or both, in migrants and excluded articles in which data were not stratified by migrant status, or in which the data were related to outcomes before 2000. There were no geographical or language restrictions. All included studies were quality appraised using recognised tools depending on their design, and we assessed the heterogeneity of analyses using I2. We extracted data on the numbers of migrants initiating and completing treatment. Our primary outcomes were LTBI treatment initiation and completion in migrants (defined as foreign-born). We used random-effects meta-regression to examine the influence of factors related to these outcomes. The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019140338). 2199 publications were retrieved screened, after which 39 publications from 13 mostly high-income, low-burden countries were included in our analyses, with treatment initiation and completion data reported for 31 598 migrants positive for LTBI, with not all articles reporting the full pathway from initiation to completion. The pooled estimate for the true proportion of migrants testing positive who initiated treatment was 69% (95% CI 51–84; I2= 99·62%; 4409 of 8764). The pooled estimate for the true proportion of migrants on treatment in datasets, who subsequently completed it was 74% (95% CI = 66–81; I2= 99·19%; 15 516 of 25 629). Where data were provided for the entire treatment pathway, the pooled estimate for the true proportion of migrants who initiated and completed treatment after a positive test was only 52% (95% CI 40–64; I2= 98·90%; 3289 of 6652). Meta-regression showed that LTBI programmes are improving, with more recent reported data (2010–20) associated with better rates of treatment initiation and completion, with multiple complex factors affecting treatment outcomes in migrants. Although our analysis highlights that LTBI treatment initiation and completion in migrants has improved considerably from 2010–20, there is still room for improvement, with drop out reported along the entire treatment pathway. The delivery of these screening and treatment programmes will require further strengthening if the targets to eradicate tuberculosis in low-incidence countries are to be met, with greater focus needed on engaging migrants more effectively in the clinic and understanding the diverse and unique barriers and facilitators to migrants initiating and completing treatment. European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, the Rosetrees Trust, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Academy of Medical Sciences.

Migrants have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 and emerging evidence suggests they may face barriers to COVID-19 vaccination. Participatory approaches and engagement strategies are urgently needed to strengthen uptake, alongside innovative delivery mechanisms and sharing of best practice, to ensure migrants are better consider within countries’ existing vaccine priority structures.