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.

A report by the Institute for Public Policy Research found further evidence of the adverse impacts of the current charging system and offers options to reform this system.7,8 Some newly arrived migrants to the UK are less likely to be immunised than the general population.91011121314 Recent examples of the health consequences of the under immunisation of vulnerable migrants include outbreaks of scabies and diphtheria in large migrant processing centres.151617 Such health protection incidents have raised concerns about the impact of the Illegal Migration Bill on healthcare accessibility and continuity of care.12 Ensuring timely vaccine provision for migrants is important for individual level health and the health of the wider community for the prevention of outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases, such as diphtheria, measles, polio and Hepatitis A. What NHS services are migrants entitled to? Year ending December 2022. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/longterminternationalmigrationprovisional/yearendingdecember2022 2 Aldridge, R.W., et al., Global patterns of mortality in international migrants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2018. Immunisation status of UK-bound refugees between January, 2018, and October, 2019: a retrospective, population-based cross-sectional study, The Lancet Public Health, Volume 7, Issue 7.

Infectious diseases account for 15 million deaths per year worldwide, and disproportionately affect young people, elderly people, and the poorest sections of society. We aimed to describe the investments awarded to UK institutions for infectious disease research. We systematically searched databases and websites for information on research studies from funding institutions and created a comprehensive database of infectious disease research projects for the period 1997–2010. We categorised studies and funding by disease, cross-cutting theme, and by a research and development value chain describing the type of science. Regression analyses were reported with Spearman's rank correlation coefficient to establish the relation between research investment, mortality, and disease burden as measured by disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). We identified 6170 funded studies, with a total research investment of UK£2·6 billion. Studies with a clear global health component represented 35·6% of all funding (£927 million). By disease, HIV received £461 million (17·7%), malaria £346 million (13·3%), tuberculosis £149 million (5·7%), influenza £80 million (3·1%), and hepatitis C £60 million (2·3%). We compared funding with disease burden (DALYs and mortality) to show low levels of investment relative to burden for gastrointestinal infections (£254 million, 9·7%), some neglected tropical diseases (£184 million, 7·1%), and antimicrobial resistance (£96 million, 3·7%). Virology was the highest funded category (£1 billion, 38·4%). Leading funding sources were the Wellcome Trust (£688 million, 26·4%) and the Medical Research Council (£673 million, 25·8%). Research funding has to be aligned with prevailing and projected global infectious disease burden. Funding agencies and industry need to openly document their research investments to redress any inequities in resource allocation. None.

Background The NHS Charges to Overseas Visitors Regulations 2015 outline when healthcare costs should be recuperated from overseas visitors in England. National and global stakeholders have expressed concerns that charging may exacerbate health inequalities and undermine public health efforts especially among vulnerable migrant groups. This review aims to systematically describe the evidence regarding the impact of NHS charging regulations on healthcare access and utilisation and health outcomes for migrants in England. Methods A systematic search of scientific databases and grey literature sources was performed. Quantitative and qualitative studies, case studies and grey literature published between 1 January 2014 and 1 April 2021 were included. Screening, data extraction and quality appraisal were carried out in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Results From the 1,459 identified studies, 10 were selected for inclusion. 6 were qualitative, 3 were mixed methods and 1 was quantitative. The evidence is lacking but suggests that fears of charging and data sharing can deter some migrants from accessing healthcare. There is also evidence to suggest a lack of knowledge of the charging regulations among patients and healthcare professionals is contributing to this deterrence. Conclusions Further independent research supported by strengthening of data collection is required to better understand the effects of charging on healthcare and health outcomes among vulnerable migrants. Our findings support improved training and communication about NHS Charging Regulations for patients and professionals.

BackgroundThe size and concentration of exhaled bioaerosols may influence TB transmission risk. This study piloted bioaerosol measurement in patients with TB and assessed variability in bioaerosol production during normal tidal breathing. Understanding this may provide a tool for assessing heterogeneity in infectivity and may inform mathematical models of TB control practices and policies.MethodsOptical particle counter technology was used to measure aerosol size and concentration in exhaled air (range 0.3–20 µm in diameter) during 15 tidal breaths across four groups over time: healthy/uninfected, healthy/Mycobacterium tuberculosis-infected, patients with extrathoracic TB and patients with intrathoracic TB. High-particle production was defined as any 1–5 µm sized bioaerosol count above the median count among all participants (median count=2 counts/L).ResultsData from 188 participants were obtained pretreatment (baseline). Bioaerosol production varied considerably between individuals. Multivariable analysis showed intrathoracic TB was associated with a 3½-fold increase in odds of high production of 1–5 µm bioaerosols (adjusted OR: 3.5; 95% CI 1.6 to 7.8; p=0.002) compared with healthy/uninfected individuals.ConclusionsWe provide the first evidence that intrathoracic TB increases bioaerosol production in a particle size range that could plausibly transport M. tuberculosis. There is substantial variation in production within patients with TB that may conceivably relate to the degree of infectivity. Further data is needed to determine if high bioaerosol production during tidal breathing is associated with infectiousness.

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.

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.

Background : Homelessness has increased by 165% since 2010 in England, with evidence from many settings that those affected experience high levels of mortality. In this paper we examine the contribution of different causes of death to overall mortality in homeless people recently admitted to hospitals in England with specialist integrated homeless health and care (SIHHC) schemes.  Methods : We undertook an analysis of linked hospital admission records and mortality data for people attending any one of 17 SIHHC schemes between 1st November 2013 and 30th November 2016. Our primary outcome was death, which we analysed in subgroups of 10th version international classification of disease (ICD-10) specific deaths; and deaths from amenable causes. We compared our results to a sample of people living in areas of high social deprivation (IMD5 group). Results : We collected data on 3,882 individual homeless hospital admissions that were linked to 600 deaths. The median age of death was 51.6 years (interquartile range 42.7-60.2) for SIHHC and 71.5 for the IMD5 (60.67-79.0).  The top three underlying causes of death by ICD-10 chapter in the SIHHC group were external causes of death (21.7%; 130/600), cancer (19.0%; 114/600) and digestive disease (19.0%; 114/600).  The percentage of deaths due to an amenable cause after age and sex weighting was 30.2% in the homeless SIHHC group (181/600) compared to 23.0% in the IMD5 group (578/2,512). Conclusion : Nearly one in three homeless deaths were due to causes amenable to timely and effective health care. The high burden of amenable deaths highlights the extreme health harms of homelessness and the need for greater emphasis on prevention of homelessness and early healthcare interventions.

ObjectivesExplore 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.DesignQualitative interview study with purposive sampling and thematic analysis.SettingUK primary care.Participants64 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).ResultsParticipants 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).ConclusionsWHO’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.

IntroductionTreatment for tuberculosis (TB) is highly effective if taken according to prescribed schedules. However, many people have difficulty adhering to treatment which can lead to poorer clinical outcomes, the development of drug resistance, increased duration of infectivity and consequent onward transmission of infection. A range of approaches are available to support adherence but in order to target these effectively a better understanding of the predictors of poor adherence is needed. This review aims to highlight the personal, sociocultural and structural factors that may lead to poor adherence in high-income and middle-income settings.Methods and analysisSeven electronic databases, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, The Cochrane Library, Scopus and Web of Science, will be searched for relevant articles using a prespecified search strategy. Observational studies will be targeted to explore factors that influence adherence to treatment in individuals diagnosed with TB. Screening title and abstract followed by full-text screening and critical appraisal will be conducted by two researchers. Data will be extracted using the Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcomes, Study characteristics framework. For cross-study assessment of strength of evidence for particular risk factors affecting adherence we will use the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool modified for prognostic studies. A narrative synthesis of the studies will be compiled. A meta-analysis will be considered if there are sufficient numbers of studies that are homogenous in study design, population and outcomes.DisseminationA draft conceptual framework will be identified that (A) identifies key barriers to adherence at each contextual level (eg, personal, sociocultural, health systems) and (B) maps the relationships, pathways and mechanisms of effect between these factors and adherence outcomes for people with TB. The draft conceptual framework will guide targeting of adherence interventions and further research.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017061049.