Recording and analysing ethnicity in public health research: a bibliographical review and focus group discussions with young migrants and refugees in the UK.

BACKGROUND: The ethnicity data gap hinders public health research from addressing ethnic health inequity in the UK, especially for under-served young, migrant populations. We aimed to review how ethnicity was captured, reported, analysed, and theorised within policy-relevant research. METHODS: For this bibliographical review, we reviewed a selection of the 1% most highly cited population health papers reporting UK ethnicity data in MEDLINE and Web of Science databases between Jan 1, 1946, and July 31, 2022, and extracted how ethnicity was recorded and analysed. We included cross-sectional, longitudinal cohort studies, and randomised trials using only UK populations, which were peer-reviewed, were written in English, and reported ethnicity and any health-related outcomes. We held three focus groups with ten participants aged 18-25 years, from Nigeria, Turkistan, Syria, Yemen, and Iran to help us shape and interpret our findings, and asked "How should ethnicity be asked inclusively, and better recorded?" and "Does ethnicity change over time or context? If so, why?". We consolidated feedback from our focus groups into a co-created poster with recommendations for researchers studying ethnicity and health. Written informed consent was obtained for focus group participation. FINDINGS: Of 44 papers included in the review, 19 (43%) used self-reported ethnicity, but the number of ethnic categories provided varied. Of 27 papers that aggregated ethnicity, 13 (48%) provided justification. Only eight (18%) explicitly theorised how ethnicity related to health. The focus groups agreed that (1) ethnicity should not be prescribed by others (individuals could be asked to describe their ethnicity in free-text, which researchers could synthesise to extract relevant dimensions of ethnicity for their research) and (2) Ethnicity changes over time and context according to personal experience, social pressure, and nationality change. The lived experience of ethnicity of migrants and non-migrants is not fully interchangeable, even if they share the same ethnic category. INTERPRETATION: Researchers should communicate clearly how ethnicity is operationalised in their studies, with appropriate justification for clustering and analysis that is meaningfully theorised. Our study was limited by its non-systematic nature. Implementing the recommendation to capture ethnicity via free text remains challenging in administrative data systems. FUNDING: UCL Engagement Beacon Bursary.

Lessons learned from co-production in public health research: the MAMAH case study involving underserved migrant mothers in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Research suggests some migrant women are at increased risk of mortality and morbidity in the perinatal period; however, there is a gap in co-produced research to improve care. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) defines co-production as "an approach in which researchers, practitioners, and members of the public work together, sharing power and responsibility". We summarise learnings from our study, which aimed to co-produce solutions to improve maternity care for migrant women in the UK, by working with women to identify the most important research priorities. METHODS: We recruited 18 underserved migrant women living in the UK who had given birth in the UK within the past 15 years to create a patient advisory panel. They were recruited via national and local non-governmental organisations and snowball sampling using purposive methods to ensure representation from a range of backgrounds, including those who were refugees, asylum seekers, and undocumented. Underserved was defined as asylum seeking, refugee, undocumented, or low-income mothers (those who were experiencing homelessness or in receipt of welfare support). The women are involved in conceptualisation, analysis, and dissemination of the project. The project is a UK National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Doctoral Fellowship project lasting 3 years with a variety of research workstreams. FINDINGS: The research funding application process began in January, 2021, and the project was funded and began in November, 2022. The research team struggled to access comprehensive training on co-production, particularly in how to counter power dynamics. We appointed a Lead Patient Advisor who manages the relationship between the academics and the patient advisors. Additionally, we reimburse women's time, childcare, and travel. We have found that online meetings are preferable, as women do not need to travel or arrange childcare. We meet our patient advisory panel four times per year. Some women have been directly involved in research such as systematic review screening and qualitative interviewing and have been given research training. Our initial research priorities did not align with those of the women, and this helped us to reshape our work. Women said that having a Lead Patient Advisor made it easier to participate, particularly as some issues are traumatic. To mitigate this, we have offered support resources and debriefing. Using online interpreters has been challenging, and we have recently split into different language groups to maximise engagement. INTERPRETATION: Overall, as researchers, we have learned that taking a truly co-produced approach is time-consuming but has ensured our research prioritises the views of migrant women giving birth in the UK. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR).

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).

Long-term outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 variants and other respiratory infections: evidence from the Virus Watch prospective cohort in England.

This study compared the likelihood of long-term sequelae following infection with SARS-CoV-2 variants, other acute respiratory infections (ARIs) and non-infected individuals. Participants (n=5,630) were drawn from Virus Watch, a prospective community cohort investigating SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology in England. Using logistic regression, we compared predicted probabilities of developing long-term symptoms (>2 months) during different variant dominance periods according to infection status (SARS-CoV-2, other ARI, or no infection), adjusting for confounding by demographic and clinical factors and vaccination status. SARS-CoV-2 infection during early variant periods up to Omicron BA.1 was associated with greater probability of long-term sequalae (adjusted predicted probability (PP) range 0.27, 95% CI = 0.22-0.33 to 0.34, 95% CI = 0.25-0.43) compared with later Omicron sub-variants (PP range 0.11, 95% CI 0.08-0.15 to 0.14, 95% CI 0.10-0.18). While differences between SARS-CoV-2 and other ARIs (PP range 0.08, 95% CI 0.04-0.11 to 0.23, 95% CI 0.18-0.28) varied by period, all post-infection estimates substantially exceeded those for non-infected participants (PP range 0.01, 95% CI 0.00, 0.02 to 0.03, 95% CI 0.01-0.06). Variant was an important predictor of SARS-CoV-2 post-infection sequalae, with recent Omicron sub-variants demonstrating similar probabilities to other contemporaneous ARIs. Further aetiological investigation including between-pathogen comparison is recommended.

To what extent did mortality from COVID-19 in England and Wales differ for migrants compared to non-migrants in 2020 and 2021? A descriptive, observational study.

Seventeen percent of people living in the UK are migrants. In high-income countries, migrants have been shown to have better all-cause mortality but worse mortality for some specific causes such as infectious diseases. This observational study aims to quantify the extent to which mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) differed between migrants and non-migrants for the population of England and Wales, 2020-2021. We use Official National Statistics data to compare mortality from COVID-19 in 2020 and 2021 by country/region of birth, expressed as the standardized mortality ratio with those born in England and Wales as the reference population. Migrants from 17 of 19 countries/regions examined had higher mortality from COVID-19 than non-migrants. The highest mortality was those born in Bangladesh (females SMR = 3.39, 95% CIs 3.09-3.71; males 4.41, 95% CIs 4.09-4.75); Pakistan (females 2.73, 95% CIs 2.59-2.89; males 3.02, 95% CIs 2.89-3.14); and the Caribbean (females 2.03, 95% CIs 1.87-2.20; males 2.48, 95% CIs 2.37-2.60). Migrants born in Antarctica and Oceania (females 0.54, 95% CI 0.42-0.40; males 0.71, 95% CI 0.51-0.88), and North and Central America (females 0.95, 95% CI 0.80-1.11; males 0.85, 95% CI 0.72-0.99) had lower mortality than non-migrants. Most migrant populations had higher mortality from COVID-19 than non-migrants in England and Wales. Policy-makers must work to integrate migration status into routine data collection to inform future research and understand the causes of the inequalities seen.

COVID-19 vaccination uptake for half a million non-EU migrants and refugees in England: a linked retrospective population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has highlighted severe health inequities experienced by certain migrants. Despite evidence suggesting that migrants are at risk of under-immunisation, data are limited for migrants' COVID-19 vaccine uptake in England. METHODS: We did a retrospective population-based cohort study on COVID-19 vaccination uptake in England. We linked the Million Migrant cohort (which includes non-EU migrants and resettled refugees) to the national COVID-19 vaccination dataset, using a stepwise deterministic matching procedure adapted from NHS Digital, and compared migrants with the general population. For migrants who linked to at least one vaccination record, we estimate temporal trends in first dose uptake and differences in second and third dose uptake and consequent delays between Dec 8, 2020, and April 20, 2022, by age, visa type, and ethnicity. FINDINGS: Of the 465 470 migrants who linked to one or more vaccination record, 427 073 (91·8%) received a second dose and 238 721 (51·3%) received a third. Migrants (>30 years) reached 75% first-dose coverage between 1 and 2 weeks after the general population in England, with the gap widening to 6 weeks for younger migrants (16-29 years). Refugees specifically had a higher risk of a delayed second dose (odds ratio 1·75 [95 CI% 1·62-1·88]) and third dose (1·41 [1·31-1·53]). Older migrants (>65 years) were at least four times more likely to have not received their second or third dose compared with those of the same age in England. INTERPRETATION: Uptake of the first dose was slower across all age groups for migrants compared with the general population. Refugees and older migrants were more likely to have delayed uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and to not have received their second or third dose. Policymakers, researchers, and practitioners should consider how to best drive uptake of COVID-19 and other routine vaccine doses and understand and address personal and structural barriers to vaccination systems for diverse migrant populations. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust and UK Research and Innovation.

Bayesian reconstruction of household transmissions to infer the serial interval of COVID-19 by variants of concern: analysis from a prospective community cohort study (Virus Watch).

BACKGROUND: The serial interval is a key epidemiological measure that quantifies the time between an infector's and an infectee's onset of symptoms. This measure helps investigate epidemiological links between cases, and is an important parameter in transmission models used to estimate transmissibility and inform control strategies. The emergence of multiple variants of concern (VOC) during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has led to uncertainties about potential changes in the serial interval of COVID-19. We estimated the household serial interval of multiple VOC using data collected by the Virus Watch study. This online, prospective, community cohort study followed-up entire households in England and Wales since mid-June 2020. METHODS: This analysis included 5842 symptomatic individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection among 2579 households from Sept 1, 2020, to Aug 10, 2022. SARS-CoV-2 variant designation was based upon national surveillance data of variant prevalence by date and geographical region. We used a Bayesian framework to infer who infected whom by exploring all transmission trees compatible with the observed dates of symptoms, given assumptions on the incubation period and generation time distributions using the R package outbreaker2. FINDINGS: We characterised the serial interval of COVID-19 by VOC. The mean serial interval was shortest for omicron BA5 (2·02 days; 95% credible interval [CrI] 1·26-2·84) and longest for alpha (3·37 days; 2·52-4·04). The mean serial interval before alpha (wild-type) was 2·29 days (95% CrI 1·39-2·94), 3·11 days (2·28-3·90) for delta, 2·72 days (2·01-3·47) for omicron BA1, and 2·67 days (1·90-3·46) for omicron BA2. We estimated that 17% (95% CrI 5-26) of serial interval values are negative across all variants. INTERPRETATION: Most methods estimating the reproduction number from incidence time series do not allow for a negative serial interval by construction. Further research is needed to extend these methods and assess biases introduced by not accounting for negative serial intervals. To our knowledge, this study is the first to use a Bayesian framework to estimate the serial interval of all major SARS-CoV-2 VOC from thousands of confirmed household cases. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and Wellcome Trust.

Drivers determining tuberculosis disease screening yield in four European screening programmes: a comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization End TB Strategy emphasises screening for early diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) in high-risk groups, including migrants. We analysed key drivers of TB yield differences in four large migrant TB screening programmes to inform TB control planning and feasibility of a European approach. METHODS: We pooled individual TB screening episode data from Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK, and analysed predictors and interactions for TB case yield using multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Between 2005 and 2018 in 2 302 260 screening episodes among 2 107 016 migrants to four countries, the programmes identified 1658 TB cases (yield 72.0 (95% CI 68.6-75.6) per 100 000). In logistic regression analysis, we found associations between TB screening yield and age (≥55 years: OR 2.91 (95% CI 2.24-3.78)), being an asylum seeker (OR 3.19 (95% CI 1.03-9.83)) or on a settlement visa (OR 1.78 (95% CI 1.57-2.01)), close TB contact (OR 12.25 (95% CI 11.73-12.79)) and higher TB incidence in the country of origin. We demonstrated interactions between migrant typology and age, as well as country of origin. For asylum seekers, the elevated TB risk remained similar above country of origin incidence thresholds of 100 per 100 000. CONCLUSIONS: Key determinants of TB yield included close contact, increasing age, incidence in country of origin and specific migrant groups, including asylum seekers and refugees. For most migrants such as UK students and workers, TB yield significantly increased with levels of incidence in the country of origin. The high, country of origin-independent TB risk in asylum seekers above a 100 per 100 000 threshold could reflect higher transmission and re-activation risk of migration routes, with implications for selecting populations for TB screening.

Elevated mortality among the second-generation (children of migrants) in Europe: what is going wrong? A review.

INTRODUCTION: The 'second-generation' (i.e. the children of migrants) represent one of the fastest growing subpopulations of the child and young adult populations in Europe today. The research so far appears to indicate that their mortality risk is elevated relative to people with non-migrant backgrounds. SOURCES OF DATA: Peer-reviewed publications. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Second-generation status is a clear marker of elevated mortality risk in Europe in early life (including stillbirth, perinatal, neonatal and infant mortality) and adulthood, particularly if the parent(s) were born outside of Europe. Socioeconomic inequality plays an important, albeit rarely defining, role in these elevated risks. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: It remains unclear what causes-of-death are driving these elevated mortality risks. The exact influence of (non-socioeconomic) explanatory factors (e.g. health care, racism & discrimination, and factors related to integration) on the elevated mortality risks of the second-generation also remains unclear. GROWING POINTS: The second-generation will continue to grow and diversify in Europe; we must intervene to address these inequalities now. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Place more emphasis on the complexity of migration background, specific causes-of-death, and understanding the roles of explanatory factors beyond socioeconomic background.

How is ethnicity reported, described, and analysed in health research in the UK? A bibliographical review and focus group discussions with young refugees.

BACKGROUND: The ethnicity data gap pertains to 3 major challenges to address ethnic health inequality: 1) Under-representation of ethnic minorities in research; 2) Poor data quality on ethnicity; 3) Ethnicity data not being meaningfully analysed. These challenges are especially relevant for research involving under-served migrant populations in the UK. We aimed to review how ethnicity is captured, reported, analysed and theorised within policy-relevant research on ethnic health inequities. METHODS: We reviewed a selection of the 1% most highly cited population health papers that reported UK data on ethnicity, and extracted how ethnicity was recorded and analysed in relation to health outcomes. We focused on how ethnicity was obtained (i.e. self reported or not), how ethnic groups were categorised, whether justification was provided for any categorisation, and how ethnicity was theorised to be related to health. We held three 1-h-long guided focus groups with 10 young people from Nigeria, Turkistan, Syria, Yemen and Iran. This engagement helped us shape and interpret our findings, and reflect on. 1) How should ethnicity be asked inclusively, and better recorded? 2) Does self-defined ethnicity change over time or context? If so, why? RESULTS: Of the 44 included papers, most (19; 43%) used self-reported ethnicity, categorised in a variety of ways. Of the 27 papers that aggregated ethnicity, 13 (48%) provided justification. Only 8 of 33 papers explicitly theorised how ethnicity related to health. The focus groups agreed that 1) Ethnicity should not be prescribed by others; individuals could be asked to describe their ethnicity in free-text which researchers could synthesise to extract relevant dimensions of ethnicity for their research; 2) Ethnicity changes over time and context according to personal experience, social pressure, and nationality change; 3) Migrants and non-migrants' lived experience of ethnicity is not fully inter-changeable, even if they share the same ethnic category. CONCLUSIONS: Ethnicity is a multi-dimensional construct, but this is not currently reflected in UK health research studies, where ethnicity is often aggregated and analysed without justification. Researchers should communicate clearly how ethnicity is operationalised for their study, with appropriate justification for clustering and analysis that is meaningfully theorised. We can only start to tackle ethnic health inequity by treating ethnicity as rigorously as any other variables in our research.

Inequalities in access to paid sick leave among workers in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: It is poorly understood which workers lack access to sick pay in England and Wales. This evidence gap has been of particular interest in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic given the relationship between presenteeism and infectious disease transmission. METHOD: This cross-sectional analysis (n = 8874) was nested within a large community cohort study based across England and Wales (Virus Watch). An online survey in February 2021 asked participants in work if they had access to paid sick leave. We used logistic regression to examine sociodemographic factors associated with lacking access to sick pay. RESULTS: Only 66% (n = 5864) of participants reported access to sick pay. South Asian workers (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.83) and those from Other minority ethnic backgrounds (OR 2.93, 95% CI 1.54-5.59) were more likely to lack access to sick pay compared to White British workers. Older workers (OR range 1.72 [1.53-1.93]-5.26 [4.42-6.26]), workers in low-income households (OR 2.53, 95% CI 2.15-2.98) and those in transport, trade, and service occupations (OR range 2.03 [1.58-2.61]-5.29 [3.67-7.72]) were also more likely to lack access to sick pay compared respectively to workers aged 25-44, those in high income households and managerial occupations. DISCUSSION: Unwarranted age and ethnic inequalities in sick pay access are suggestive of labour market discrimination. Occupational differences are also cause for concern. Policymakers should consider expanding access to sick pay to mitigate transmission of Covid-19 and other endemic respiratory infections in the community, and in the context of pandemic preparation.

Relative contribution of essential and non-essential activities to SARS-CoV-2 transmission following the lifting of public health restrictions in England and Wales.

PURPOSE: We aimed to understand which non-household activities increased infection odds and contributed greatest to SARS-CoV-2 infections following the lifting of public health restrictions in England and Wales. PROCEDURES: We undertook multivariable logistic regressions assessing the contribution to infections of activities reported by adult Virus Watch Community Cohort Study participants. We calculated adjusted weighted population attributable fractions (aPAF) estimating which activity contributed greatest to infections. FINDINGS: Among 11 413 participants (493 infections), infection was associated with: leaving home for work (aOR 1.35 (1.11-1.64), aPAF 17%), public transport (aOR 1.27 (1.04-1.57), aPAF 12%), shopping once (aOR 1.83 (1.36-2.45)) vs. more than three times a week, indoor leisure (aOR 1.24 (1.02-1.51), aPAF 10%) and indoor hospitality (aOR 1.21 (0.98-1.48), aPAF 7%). We found no association for outdoor hospitality (1.14 (0.94-1.39), aPAF 5%) or outdoor leisure (1.14 (0.82-1.59), aPAF 1%). CONCLUSION: Essential activities (work and public transport) carried the greatest risk and were the dominant contributors to infections. Non-essential indoor activities (hospitality and leisure) increased risk but contributed less. Outdoor activities carried no statistical risk and contributed to fewer infections. As countries aim to 'live with COVID', mitigating transmission in essential and indoor venues becomes increasingly relevant.

Occupation, work-related contact and SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid serological status: findings from the Virus Watch prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection varies across occupations; however, investigation into factors underlying differential risk is limited. We aimed to estimate the total effect of occupation on SARS-CoV-2 serological status, whether this is mediated by workplace close contact, and how exposure to poorly ventilated workplaces varied across occupations. METHODS: We used data from a subcohort (n=3775) of adults in the UK-based Virus Watch cohort study who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid antibodies (indicating natural infection). We used logistic decomposition to investigate the relationship between occupation, contact and seropositivity, and logistic regression to investigate exposure to poorly ventilated workplaces. RESULTS: Seropositivity was 17.1% among workers with daily close contact vs 10.0% for those with no work-related close contact. Compared with other professional occupations, healthcare, indoor trade/process/plant, leisure/personal service, and transport/mobile machine workers had elevated adjusted total odds of seropositivity (1.80 (1.03 to 3.14) - 2.46 (1.82 to 3.33)). Work-related contact accounted for a variable part of increased odds across occupations (1.04 (1.01 to 1.08) - 1.23 (1.09 to 1.40)). Occupations with raised odds of infection after accounting for work-related contact also had greater exposure to poorly ventilated workplaces. CONCLUSIONS: Work-related close contact appears to contribute to occupational variation in seropositivity. Reducing contact in workplaces is an important COVID-19 control measure.

A new transdisciplinary research model to investigate and improve the health of the public.

Transdisciplinary research approaches are being applied to today's complex health problems, including the climate crisis and widening inequalities. Diverse forms of disciplinary and experiential knowledge are required to understand these challenges and develop workable solutions. We aimed to create an updated model reflective of the strengths and challenges of current transdisciplinary health research that can be a guide for future studies. We searched Medline using terms related to transdisciplinary, health and research. We coded data deductively and inductively using thematic analysis to develop a preliminary model of transdisciplinary research. The model was tested and improved through: (i) a workshop with 27 participants at an international conference in Xiamen, China and (ii) online questionnaire feedback from included study authors. Our revised model recommends the following approach: (i) co-learning, an ongoing phase that recognizes the distributed nature of knowledge generation and learning across partners; (ii) (pre-)development, activities that occur before and during project initiation to establish a shared mission and ways of working; (iii) reflection and refinement to evaluate and improve processes and results, responding to emergent information and priorities as an ongoing phase; (iv) conceptualization to develop goals and the study approach by combining diverse knowledge; (v) investigation to conduct the research; (vi) implementation to use new knowledge to solve societal problems. The model includes linear and cyclical processes that may cycle back to project development. Our new model will support transdisciplinary research teams and their partners by detailing the necessary ingredients to conduct such research and achieve health impact.

Smartphone-enabled video-observed versus directly observed treatment for tuberculosis: a multicentre, analyst-blinded, randomised, controlled superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Directly observed treatment (DOT) has been the standard of care for tuberculosis since the early 1990s, but it is inconvenient for patients and service providers. Video-observed therapy (VOT) has been conditionally recommended by WHO as an alternative to DOT. We tested whether levels of treatment observation were improved with VOT. METHODS: We did a multicentre, analyst-blinded, randomised controlled superiority trial in 22 clinics in England (UK). Eligible participants were patients aged at least 16 years with active pulmonary or non-pulmonary tuberculosis who were eligible for DOT according to local guidance. Exclusion criteria included patients who did not have access to charging a smartphone. We randomly assigned participants to either VOT (daily remote observation using a smartphone app) or DOT (observations done three to five times per week in the home, community, or clinic settings). Randomisation was done by the SealedEnvelope service using minimisation. DOT involved treatment observation by a health-care or lay worker, with any remaining daily doses self-administered. VOT was provided by a centralised service in London. Patients were trained to record and send videos of every dose ingested 7 days per week using a smartphone app. Trained treatment observers viewed these videos through a password-protected website. Patients were also encouraged to report adverse drug events on the videos. Smartphones and data plans were provided free of charge by study investigators. DOT or VOT observation records were completed by observers until treatment or study end. The primary outcome was completion of 80% or more scheduled treatment observations over the first 2 months following enrolment. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and restricted (including only patients completing at least 1 week of observation on allocated arm) analyses were done. Superiority was determined by a 15% difference in the proportion of patients with the primary outcome (60% vs 75%). This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry, number ISRCTN26184967. FINDINGS: Between Sept 1, 2014, and Oct 1, 2016, we randomly assigned 226 patients; 112 to VOT and 114 to DOT. Overall, 131 (58%) patients had a history of homelessness, imprisonment, drug use, alcohol problems or mental health problems. In the ITT analysis, 78 (70%) of 112 patients on VOT achieved ≥80% scheduled observations successfully completed during the first 2 months compared with 35 (31%) of 114 on DOT (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 5·48, 95% CI 3·10-9·68; p<0·0001). In the restricted analysis, 78 (77%) of 101 patients on VOT achieved the primary outcome compared with 35 (63%) of 56 on DOT (adjusted OR 2·52; 95% CI 1·17-5·54; p=0·017). Stomach pain, nausea, and vomiting were the most common adverse events reported (in 16 [14%] of 112 on VOT and nine [8%] of 114 on DOT). INTERPRETATION: VOT was a more effective approach to observation of tuberculosis treatment than DOT. VOT is likely to be preferable to DOT for many patients across a broad range of settings, providing a more acceptable, effective, and cheaper option for supervision of daily and multiple daily doses than DOT. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

What works in inclusion health: overview of effective interventions for marginalised and excluded populations.

Inclusion health is a service, research, and policy agenda that aims to prevent and redress health and social inequities among the most vulnerable and excluded populations. We did an evidence synthesis of health and social interventions for inclusion health target populations, including people with experiences of homelessness, drug use, imprisonment, and sex work. These populations often have multiple overlapping risk factors and extreme levels of morbidity and mortality. We identified numerous interventions to improve physical and mental health, and substance use; however, evidence is scarce for structural interventions, including housing, employment, and legal support that can prevent exclusion and promote recovery. Dedicated resources and better collaboration with the affected populations are needed to realise the benefits of existing interventions. Research must inform the benefits of early intervention and implementation of policies to address the upstream causes of exclusion, such as adverse childhood experiences and poverty.

Global patterns of mortality in international migrants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: 258 million people reside outside their country of birth; however, to date no global systematic reviews or meta-analyses of mortality data for these international migrants have been done. We aimed to review and synthesise available mortality data on international migrants. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases for observational studies, systematic reviews, and randomised controlled trials published between Jan 1, 2001, and March 31, 2017, without language restrictions. We included studies reporting mortality outcomes for international migrants of any age residing outside their country of birth. Studies that recruited participants exclusively from intensive care or high dependency hospital units, with an existing health condition or status, or a particular health exposure were excluded. We also excluded studies limited to maternal or perinatal outcomes. We screened studies using systematic review software and extracted data from published reports. The main outcomes were all-cause and International Classification of Diseases, tenth revision (ICD-10) cause-specific standardised mortality ratios (SMRs) and absolute mortality rates. We calculated summary estimates using random-effects models. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017073608. FINDINGS: Of the 12 480 articles identified by our search, 96 studies were eligible for inclusion. The studies were geographically diverse and included data from all global regions and for 92 countries. 5464 mortality estimates for more than 15·2 million migrants were included, of which 5327 (97%) were from high-income countries, 115 (2%) were from middle-income countries, and 22 (<1%) were from low-income countries. Few studies included mortality estimates for refugees (110 estimates), asylum seekers (144 estimates), or labour migrants (six estimates). The summary estimate of all-cause SMR for international migrants was lower than one when compared with the general population in destination countries (0·70 [95% CI 0·65-0·76]; I2=99·8%). All-cause SMR was lower in both male migrants (0·72 [0·63-0·81]; I2=99·8%) and female migrants (0·75 [0·67-0·84]; I2=99·8%) compared with the general population. A mortality advantage was evident for refugees (SMR 0·50 [0·46-0·54]; I2=89·8%), but not for asylum seekers (1·05 [0·89-1·24]; I2=54·4%), although limited data was available on these groups. SMRs for all causes of death were lower in migrants compared with the general populations in the destination country across all 13 ICD-10 categories analysed, with the exception of infectious diseases and external causes. Heterogeneity was high across the majority of analyses. Point estimates of all-cause age-standardised mortality in migrants ranged from 420 to 874 per 100 000 population. INTERPRETATION: Our study showed that international migrants have a mortality advantage compared with general populations, and that this advantage persisted across the majority of ICD-10 disease categories. The mortality advantage identified will be representative of international migrants in high-income countries who are studying, working, or have joined family members in these countries. However, our results might not reflect the health outcomes of more marginalised groups in low-income and middle-income countries because little data were available for these groups, highlighting an important gap in existing research. Our results present an opportunity to reframe the public discourse on international migration and health in high-income countries. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council, Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, Department for International Development, Fogarty International Center, Grand Challenges Canada, International Development Research Centre Canada, Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, National Cancer Institute, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, National Institute of Mental Health, Swiss National Science Foundation, World Diabetes Foundation, UK National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Imperial College Healthcare Charity, and European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) Study Group Research Funding for the ESCMID Study Group for Infections in Travellers and Migrants.

Morbidity and mortality in homeless individuals, prisoners, sex workers, and individuals with substance use disorders in high-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Inclusion health focuses on people in extremely poor health due to poverty, marginalisation, and multimorbidity. We aimed to review morbidity and mortality data on four overlapping populations who experience considerable social exclusion: homeless populations, individuals with substance use disorders, sex workers, and imprisoned individuals. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies published between Jan 1, 2005, and Oct 1, 2015. We included only systematic reviews, meta-analyses, interventional studies, and observational studies that had morbidity and mortality outcomes, were published in English, from high-income countries, and were done in populations with a history of homelessness, imprisonment, sex work, or substance use disorder (excluding cannabis and alcohol use). Studies with only perinatal outcomes and studies of individuals with a specific health condition or those recruited from intensive care or high dependency hospital units were excluded. We screened studies using systematic review software and extracted data from published reports. Primary outcomes were measures of morbidity (prevalence or incidence) and mortality (standardised mortality ratios [SMRs] and mortality rates). Summary estimates were calculated using a random effects model. FINDINGS: Our search identified 7946 articles, of which 337 studies were included for analysis. All-cause standardised mortality ratios were significantly increased in 91 (99%) of 92 extracted datapoints and were 11·86 (95% CI 10·42-13·30; I2=94·1%) in female individuals and 7·88 (7·03-8·74; I2=99·1%) in men. Summary SMR estimates for the International Classification of Diseases disease categories with two or more included datapoints were highest for deaths due to injury, poisoning, and other external causes, in both men (7·89; 95% CI 6·40-9·37; I2=98·1%) and women (18·72; 13·73-23·71; I2=91·5%). Disease prevalence was consistently raised across the following categories: infections (eg, highest reported was 90% for hepatitis C, 67 [65%] of 103 individuals for hepatitis B, and 133 [51%] of 263 individuals for latent tuberculosis infection), mental health (eg, highest reported was 9 [4%] of 227 individuals for schizophrenia), cardiovascular conditions (eg, highest reported was 32 [13%] of 247 individuals for coronary heart disease), and respiratory conditions (eg, highest reported was 9 [26%] of 35 individuals for asthma). INTERPRETATION: Our study shows that homeless populations, individuals with substance use disorders, sex workers, and imprisoned individuals experience extreme health inequities across a wide range of health conditions, with the relative effect of exclusion being greater in female individuals than male individuals. The high heterogeneity between studies should be explored further using improved data collection in population subgroups. The extreme health inequity identified demands intensive cross-sectoral policy and service action to prevent exclusion and improve health outcomes in individuals who are already marginalised. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, National Institute for Health Research, NHS England, NHS Research Scotland Scottish Senior Clinical Fellowship, Medical Research Council, Chief Scientist Office, and the Central and North West London NHS Trust.