Relational community engagement within health interventions at varied outcome scales.

Relational community engagement may be a powerful approach with multiple health outcomes. Relational community engagement has the potential to promote health and involves collaborative efforts between multiple stakeholders. The COVID-19 pandemic further highlighted the centrality of community engagement in health crises. Challenges continue to persist, however, in genuinely engaging and empowering communities for better health outcomes. Understanding the multi-level and complex relational nature of community engagement is essential to comprehend its influence on health at micro, meso, and macro scales of influence. The purpose of this narrative review was to synthesize the literature on relational community engagement within varied health interventions at the three major system levels (micro, meso, and macro) to support the development of future research agendas. At the micro level, relational community engagement interventions demonstrated a range of positive outcomes including: increased sense of control, satisfaction, positive behavior, improved knowledge, behavior change, empowerment, and overall positive health and social outcomes. At the meso level, relational community engagement interventions resulted in increased trust between stakeholders and groups/teams, and increased community senses of ownership of interventions, decisions, structures. At the macro level, relational community engagement interventions influenced broader societal factors and had positive impacts on health policy and governance including collaboration between sectors and communities as well as increased access to services. The review highlights the potential versatility and effectiveness of interventions that prioritize relationships, health promotion, and social change while underscoring the significance of holistic and community-centered approaches in addressing diverse health and social challenges.

Interventions to improve latent and active tuberculosis treatment completion rates in underserved groups in low incidence countries: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: People in underserved groups have higher rates of tuberculosis (TB) and poorer treatment outcomes compared with people with no social risk factors. OBJECTIVES: This scoping review aimed to identify interventions that improve TB treatment adherence or completion rates. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies of any design focusing on interventions to improve adherence or completion of TB treatment in underserved populations in low incidence countries. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched (January 2015 to December 2023). CHARTING METHODS: Piloted data extraction forms were used. Findings were tabulated and reported narratively. Formal risk of bias assessment or synthesis was not undertaken. RESULTS: 47 studies were identified. There was substantial heterogeneity in study design, population, intervention components, usual care and definition of completion rates. Most studies were in migrants or refugees, with fewer in populations with other risk factors (eg, homelessness, imprisonment or substance abuse). Based on controlled studies, there was limited evidence to suggest that shorter treatment regimens, video-observed therapy (compared with directly observed therapy), directly observed therapy (compared with self-administered treatment) and approaches that include tailored health or social support beyond TB treatment may lead to improved outcomes. This evidence is mostly observational and subject to confounding. There were no studies in Gypsy, Roma and Traveller populations, or individuals with mental health disorders and only one in sex workers. Barriers to treatment adherence included a lack of knowledge around TB, lack of general health or social support and side effects. Facilitators included health education, trusted relationships between patients and healthcare staff, social support and reduced treatment duration. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base is limited, and few controlled studies exist. Further high-quality research in well-defined underserved populations is needed to confirm the limited findings and inform policy and practice in TB management. Further qualitative research should include more people from underserved groups.

Interventions to improve access to primary care for inclusion health groups in England: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Everyone in England has the right to primary care without financial charges. Nevertheless, evidence shows that barriers remain for inclusion health populations such as vulnerable migrants, people experiencing homelessness, Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller (GRT) communities, and people who sell sex. There is little evidence for what works to improve access. This study was a scoping review of interventions to improve access to mainstream primary care for inclusion health groups in England. METHODS: In this scoping review, we searched databases (Embase, Medline, APA PsychInfo, the Cochrane Collaboration Library, Web of Science and CINAHL) and grey literature sources, including the National Health Service and National Institute for Clinical Excellence, for articles published in English between Jan 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2020, with no limit on study design. Data were extracted according to inclusion criteria, including interventions taking place in England and targeting people with insecure immigration status, people who sell sex, people experiencing homelessness, and GRT communities. Results were presented in a narrative synthesis. FINDINGS: 39 studies describing one or more interventions were included: four peer-reviewed articles (one randomised trial, two quality improvement projects, and one mixed-methods study protocol) and 25 grey literature items (38 interventions in total). Interventions mostly targeted people with insecure immigration status (17/38, 45%), and a majority (12/38, 32%) took place in London. The most common types of intervention were training, education, and resources (such as leaflets or websites) for patients or staff (25/38, 66%), and most interventions targeted GP registration processes (28/38, 74%). Interventions commonly involved voluntary and community sector organisations (16/38, 42%). Most interventions were not evaluated to understand their effectiveness (23/38, 61%). Sources with evaluations identified staff training, direct patient advocacy, and involvement of people with lived experience as effective elements. INTERPRETATION: Interventions to improve access to primary care for inclusion health groups in England were heterogeneous, commonly undertaken at community level, and developed to serve local inclusion health groups. Considerations for policymakers and practitioners include groups and geographical areas less commonly included in interventions, the elements of positive practice identified in evaluations, and the need for evaluation of future interventions. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR 202050).

Perspectives on registration to primary care from inclusion health groups in England: a mixed-method study.

BACKGROUND: Although everyone living in the UK is entitled to access free primary care within the National Health Service (NHS), evidence shows that people in need of health care are wrongly being refused access. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of individuals from inclusion health groups on primary care registration and accessibility. METHODS: This was a mixed-methods study. From Oct 5, 2022, to Feb 20, 2023, we surveyed 49 people (36 [73%] men; 12 [24%] women) and interviewed 25 other (14 [56%] men; 11 [44%] women) who were service users of the University College London Hospital Find & Treat mobile service. This service included people with lived experience of homelessness, asylum seeking, addiction, selling sex, and irregular immigration. We recruited these participants through hostels for people with ongoing addiction and complex needs, initial asylum accommodation centres, and day shelters. Our research team included two peer researchers. FINDINGS: Of those surveyed, 25 (51%) perceived their access to primary health-care services as good, and 17 (35%) reported obstacles to going to the general practitioner (GP). Participants described multiple barriers to registering for GP surgeries, including a lack of understanding and poor communication with NHS services, a fear of discrimination, and a lack of digital access that prevents information seeking and access to services. Respondents also reported using emergency services instead of primary care because they were more immediately accessible without previous registration. Facilitators to GP registration included one-on-one support and outreach work that helps people navigate into services and know their rights, and the use of specialist GP services, which are perceived as more accepting, especially for people experiencing homelessness. INTERPRETATION: The barriers to registration identified are related to both individual and group level characteristics and produce both similar and divergent needs between different inclusion health groups. The need for additional support during registration was clear, and our work highlights the requirement for interventions to improve access to primary care for underserved groups, as well as coordinated policy action. One-on-one support in particular, either outreach or provided in services where inclusion health groups spend time, appears to be a key facilitator to ensuring comprehensive and fast access to GP services. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR).

Exploring the relationship between national governance indicators and speed of initial government response to COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries.

Objectives: This study aimed to explore the relationship between national governance and country response to the COVID-19 pandemic in low- and middle-income countries, to support preparedness for the next pandemic. We conducted a statistical analysis of 116 countries, examining the relationship between speed of initial response and measures of national governance. Study design: Observational study, with individual countries as the unit of analysis. Methods: We used logistic regression to look for associations between quicker initial government response and four national governance indicators: Government Effectiveness, Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism, Voice and Accountability, and Corruption Perceptions Index. Results: A quicker initial government response was associated with countries with higher Government Effectiveness (OR 13.92 95% CI 3.69-52.48, p < 0.001) and lower Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09-0.57, p = 0.002). There was no relationship observed between speed of initial government response and Voice and Accountability or Corruption Perceptions Index. Other factors associated with quicker initial response were small population size, experiencing first COVID-19 case after the pandemic declaration, not having previous experience with SARS-CoV1 or MERS and not being an island nation. Conclusions: This study shows that having higher state policy and implementation capacity, and lower political stability was associated with a quicker initial pandemic response. Limitations of this study include the use of crude national level indicators and broad categorisations of countries into quicker and slower responders. Deeper enquiry into the early decision-making processes taken at the national executive level within individual countries may help clarify the observed associations further.