Health Catch-UP!: a realist evaluation of an innovative multi-disease screening and vaccination tool in UK primary care for at-risk migrant patients.

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.

Driving delivery and uptake of catch-up vaccination among adolescent and adult migrants in UK general practice: a mixed methods pilot study.

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.

Maternal immunisation against Group B Streptococcus: A global analysis of health impact and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Group B Streptococcus (GBS) can cause invasive disease (iGBS) in young infants, typically presenting as sepsis or meningitis, and is also associated with stillbirth and preterm birth. GBS vaccines are under development, but their potential health impact and cost-effectiveness have not been assessed globally. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We assessed the health impact and value (using net monetary benefit (NMB), which measures both health and economic effects of vaccination into monetary units) of GBS maternal vaccination in an annual cohort of 140 million pregnant women across 183 countries in 2020. Our analysis uses a decision tree model, incorporating risks of GBS-related health outcomes from an existing Bayesian disease burden model. We extrapolated country-specific GBS-related healthcare costs using data from a previous systematic review and calculated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost due to infant mortality and long-term disability. We assumed 80% vaccine efficacy against iGBS and stillbirth, following the WHO Preferred Product Characteristics, and coverage based on the proportion of pregnant women receiving at least 4 antenatal visits. One dose was assumed to cost $50 in high-income countries, $15 in upper-middle income countries, and $3.50 in low-/lower-middle-income countries. We estimated NMB using alternative normative assumptions that may be adopted by policymakers. Vaccinating pregnant women could avert 127,000 (95% uncertainty range 63,300 to 248,000) early-onset and 87,300 (38,100 to 209,000) late-onset infant iGBS cases, 31,100 deaths (14,400 to 66,400), 17,900 (6,380 to 49,900) cases of moderate and severe neurodevelopmental impairment, and 23,000 (10,000 to 56,400) stillbirths. A vaccine effective against GBS-associated prematurity might also avert 185,000 (13,500 to 407,000) preterm births. Globally, a 1-dose vaccine programme could cost $1.7 billion but save $385 million in healthcare costs. Estimated global NMB ranged from $1.1 billion ($-0.2 to 3.8 billion) under the least favourable normative assumptions to $17 billion ($9.1 to 31 billion) under the most favourable normative assumptions. The main limitation of our analysis was the scarcity of data to inform some of the model parameters such as those governing health-related quality of life and long-term costs from disability, and how these parameters may vary across country contexts. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that maternal GBS vaccination could have a large impact on infant morbidity and mortality. Globally, a GBS maternal vaccine at reasonable prices is likely to be a cost-effective intervention.

Short- and Long-term Outcomes of Group B Streptococcus Invasive Disease in Mozambican Children: Results of a Matched Cohort and Retrospective Observational Study and Implications for Future Vaccine Introduction.

BACKGROUND: Invasive group B Streptococcus disease (iGBS) in infancy, including meningitis or sepsis, carries a high risk of mortality and neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI). We present data on iGBS from 2 decades of surveillance in Manhiça, Mozambique, with a focus on NDI. METHODS: Morbidity surveillance databases in a rural Mozambican district hospital were screened for iGBS cases. From February 2020 to March 2021, surviving iGBS patients (n = 39) plus age- and sex-matched children without iGBS (n = 119) were assessed for neurocognitive development, vision, and hearing. The role of GBS in stillbirths and infant deaths was investigated using minimally invasive tissue sampling (MITS). RESULTS: Ninety iGBS cases were included, with most children being <3 months of age (85/90). The in-hospital case fatality rate was 14.4% (13/90), increasing to 17.8% (3 additional deaths) when considering mortality during the 6 months postdiagnosis. Fifty percent of the iGBS exposed infants and 10% of those unexposed showed any NDI. Surviving GBS conferred a 11-fold increased adjusted odds of moderate/severe NDI (odds ratio, 2.8 [95% confidence interval, .92-129.74]; P = .06) in children aged 0-5 years. For older children (6-18 years), no differences in NDI were found between exposed and unexposed. Motor domain was the most affected among young GBS survivors. Three stillbirths and 4 early neonatal deaths (of the 179 MITS performed) were attributed to iGBS. CONCLUSIONS: In absence of preventive strategies, such as intrapartum antibiotics, iGBS remains a significant cause of perinatal and infant disease and death. GBS also causes major longer-term neurodevelopmental sequelae, altogether justifying the need for maternal GBS vaccination strategies to increase perinatal and infant survival.

The projected impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on breast cancer deaths in England due to the cessation of population screening: a national estimation.

BACKGROUND: Population breast screening services in England were suspended in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we estimate the number of breast cancers whose detection may be delayed because of the suspension, and the potential impact on cancer deaths over 10 years. METHODS: We estimated the number and length of screening delays from observed NHS Breast Screening System data. We then estimated additional breast cancer deaths from three routes: asymptomatic tumours progressing to symptomatically diagnosed disease, invasive tumours which remain screen-detected but at a later date, and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) progressing to invasive disease by detection. We took progression rates, prognostic characteristics, and survival rates from published sources. RESULTS: We estimated that 1,489,237 women had screening delayed by around 2-7 months between July 2020 and June 2021, leaving 745,277 outstanding screens. Depending on how quickly this backlog is cleared, around 2500-4100 cancers would shift from screen-detected to symptomatic cancers, resulting in 148-452 additional breast cancer deaths. There would be an additional 164-222 screen-detected tumour deaths, and 71-97 deaths from DCIS that progresses to invasive cancer. CONCLUSIONS: An estimated 148-687 additional breast cancer deaths may occur as a result of the pandemic-related disruptions. The impact depends on how quickly screening services catch up with delays.

HIV EPIDEMIC HETEROGENEITY IN ZIMBABWE: EVIDENCE FROM SUCCESSIVE DEMOGRAPHIC AND HEALTH SURVEYS.

Zimbabwe has one of the worst HIV epidemics in the world. This study investigated data from two successive Zimbabwe Demographic and Health Surveys (ZDHS) conducted in 2005-06 and 2010-11. A random representative sample of 30,000 men aged 15-59 and women aged 15-49 was selected from the two surveys. The HIV prevalence was mapped with a flexible, coherent regression framework using a geo-additive semi-parametric mixed model. HIV indicator prevalence maps were constructed at the regional level, and at the administrative level relevant for policy design, planning and decision-making. Substantial regional variation was found, not only in the burden of HIV, but also in its risk factors. The results suggest that responses/policies should vary at the regional level to ensure that the often diverse needs of populations across a country are met and incorporated into planning the HIV response. The use of geographically referenced data in two successive ZDHS provides crucial new insights into the spatial characteristics of the HIV epidemic in Zimbabwe. In particular, it highlights the HIV heterogeneity across Zimbabwe, with substantial regional variation, not only in the burden of HIV, but also in its risk factors.

Intrapartum Antibiotic Chemoprophylaxis Policies for the Prevention of Group B Streptococcal Disease Worldwide: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Intrapartum antibiotic chemoprophylaxis (IAP) prevents most early-onset group B streptococcal (GBS) disease. However, there is no description of how IAP is used around the world. This article is the sixth in a series estimating the burden of GBS disease. Here we aimed to review GBS screening policies and IAP implementation worldwide. METHODS: We identified data through (1) systematic literature reviews (PubMed/Medline, Embase, Literature in the Health Sciences in Latin America and the Caribbean [LILACS], World Health Organization library database [WHOLIS], and Scopus) and unpublished data from professional societies and (2) an online survey and searches of policies from medical societies and professionals. We included data on whether an IAP policy was in use, and if so whether it was based on microbiological or clinical risk factors and how these were applied, as well as the estimated coverage (percentage of women receiving IAP where indicated). RESULTS: We received policy information from 95 of 195 (49%) countries. Of these, 60 of 95 (63%) had an IAP policy; 35 of 60 (58%) used microbiological screening, 25 of 60 (42%) used clinical risk factors. Two of 15 (13%) low-income, 4 of 16 (25%) lower-middle-income, 14 of 20 (70%) upper-middle-income, and 40 of 44 (91%) high-income countries had any IAP policy. The remaining 35 of 95 (37%) had no national policy (25/33 from low-income and lower-middle-income countries). Coverage varied considerably; for microbiological screening, median coverage was 80% (range, 20%-95%); for clinical risk factor-based screening, coverage was 29% (range, 10%-50%). Although there were differences in the microbiological screening methods employed, the individual clinical risk factors used were similar. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable heterogeneity in IAP screening policies and coverage worldwide. Alternative global strategies, such as maternal vaccination, are needed to enhance the scope of global prevention of GBS disease.

Adverse events in women and children who have received intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis treatment: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events from intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) are poorly documented yet essential to inform clinical practice for neonatal group B Streptococcus (GBS) disease prevention. In this systematic review, we appraised and synthesised the evidence on the adverse events of IAP in the mother and/or her child. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Science Citation Index from date of inception until October 16th 2016. Reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews were hand-searched. We included primary studies in English that reported any adverse events from intrapartum antibiotics for any prophylactic purpose compared to controls. The search was not restricted to prophylaxis for GBS but excluded women with symptoms of infection or undergoing caesarean section. Two reviewers assessed the methodological quality of studies, using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomised Studies. Results were synthesised narratively and displayed in text and tables. RESULTS: From 2364 unique records, 30 studies were included. Despite a wide range of adverse events reported in 17 observational studies and 13 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the evidence was inconsistent and at high risk of bias. Only one RCT investigated the long-term effects of IAP reporting potentially serious outcomes such as cerebral palsy; however, it had limited applicability and unclear biological plausibility. Seven observational studies showed that IAP for maternal GBS colonisation alters the infant microbiome. However, study populations were not followed through to clinical outcomes, therefore clinical significance is unknown. There was also observational evidence for increased antimicrobial resistance, however studies were at high or unclear risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base to determine the frequency of adverse events from intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis for neonatal GBS disease prevention is limited. As RCTs may not be possible, large, better quality, and longitudinal observational studies across countries with widespread IAP could fill this gap. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42016037195 .

Activity rating scales in adult muscle disease: what do they actually measure?

INTRODUCTION: There is a diversity of rating scales that assess function in muscle disease. Definitive knowledge of the content covered by these scales would help in making choices. METHODS: We searched for activity rating scales used for muscle disease and assessed their content by linking scale items to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and the muscle regions they cover. RESULTS: Of the 119 scales found, 19 muscle disease-specific and 9 generic scales were prioritized for analysis. These 28 scales contained 457 items, from which 1145 concepts were identified and 160 were unique. Of these concepts, 97.8% could be linked to the ICF, most to the activities and participation domain (68.7%), followed by environmental factors (22.5%) and body functions (6.6%). Global muscle function was assessed most frequently, followed by lower and upper extremity function. CONCLUSIONS: This content comparison should allow for a better-informed choice of activity rating scales for muscle disease.

Activity rating scales in adult muscle disease: how well do they actually measure?

INTRODUCTION: In an accompanying study we reported on the content of several activity rating scales that have been used for muscle disease. To further aid in achieving consensus we conducted a systematic review to assess the quality of the 19 activity rating scales designed specifically for muscle disease. METHODS: We analyzed the measurement properties and the feasibility of the 19 instruments. Several databases were searched for studies relating to the quality of the instruments under review. Two independent reviewers selected studies and assessed instrument quality using pre-agreed criteria based on published frameworks. RESULTS: We found that none of the 19 instruments have sufficiently comprehensive reporting of measurement or feasibility performance as would be required by regulatory authorities. CONCLUSIONS: Further work is required urgently to address these deficiencies of reporting or acquiring additional data. Until then, there will remain a major barrier for translational research to overcome.

Screening for latent TB, HIV, and hepatitis B/C in new migrants in a high prevalence area of London, UK: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Rising rates of infectious diseases in international migrants has reignited the debate around screening. There have been calls to strengthen primary-care-based programmes, focusing on latent TB. We did a cross-sectional study of new migrants to test an innovative one-stop blood test approach to detect multiple infections at one appointment (HIV, latent tuberculosis, and hepatitis B/C) on registration with a General Practitioner (GP) in primary care. METHODS: The study was done across two GP practices attached to hospital Accident and Emergency Departments (A&E) in a high migrant area of London for 6 months. Inclusion criteria were foreign-born individuals from a high TB prevalence country (>40 cases per 100,000) who have lived in the UK ≤ 10 years, and were over 18 years of age. All new migrants who attended a New Patient Health Check were screened for eligibility and offered the blood test. We followed routine care pathways for follow-up. RESULTS: There were 1235 new registrations in 6 months. 453 attended their New Patient Health Check, of which 47 (10.4%) were identified as new migrants (age 32.11 years [range 18-72]; 22 different nationalities; time in UK 2.28 years [0-10]). 36 (76.6%) participated in the study. The intervention only increased the prevalence of diagnosed latent TB (18.18% [95% CI 6.98-35.46]; 181.8 cases per 1000). Ultimately 0 (0%) of 6 patients with latent TB went on to complete treatment (3 did not attend referral). No cases of HIV or hepatitis B/C were found. Foreign-born patients were under-represented at these practices in relation to 2011 Census data (Chi-square test -0.111 [95% CI -0.125 to -0.097]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The one-stop approach was feasible in this context and acceptability was high. However, the number of presenting migrants was surprisingly low, reflecting the barriers to care that this group face on arrival, and none ultimately received treatment. The ongoing UK debate around immigration checks and charging in primary care for new migrants can only have negative implications for the promotion of screening in this group. Until GP registration is more actively promoted in new migrants, a better place to test this one-stop approach could be in A&E departments where migrants may present in larger numbers.

Understanding the views of adult migrants around catch-up vaccination for missed routine immunisations to define strategies to improve coverage: A UK in-depth interview study.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization's (WHO) Immunization Agenda 2030 emphasises ensuring equitable access to vaccination across the life course. This includes placing an emphasis on migrant populations who may have missed key childhood vaccines, doses, and boosters due to disrupted healthcare systems and the migration process, or differing vaccination schedules in home countries. Guidelines exist in the UK for offering catch-up vaccinations to adolscent and adult migrants with incomplete or uncertain vaccination status (including MMR, Td-IPV, MenACWY, HPV), but emerging evidence suggests awareness and implementation in primary care is poor. It is unclear whether patient-level barriers to uptake of catch-up vaccinations also exist. We explored experiences and views around catch-up vaccination among adult migrants from a range of backgrounds, to define strategies for improving catch-up vaccination policy and practice. METHODS: In-depth semi-structured interviews were carried out in two phases with adult migrant populations (refugees, asylum seekers, undocumented migrants, those with no recourse to public funds) on views and experiences around vaccination, involving a team of peer researchers from specific migrant communities trained through the study. In Phase 1, we conducted remote interviews with migrants resident in the UK for < 10 years, from diverse backgrounds. In Phase 2, we engaged specifically Congolese and Angolan migrants as part of a community-based participatory study. Topic guides were developed iteratively and piloted. Participants were recruited using purposive, opportunistic and snowball sampling methods. Interviews were conducted in English (interpreters offered), Lingala or French and were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using a thematic framework approach in NVivo 12. RESULTS: 71 participants (39 in Phase 1, 32 in Phase 2) were interviewed (Mean age 43.6 [SD:12.4] years, 69% female, mean 9.5 [SD:7] years in the UK). Aside from COVID-19 vaccines, most participants reported never having been offered vaccinations or asked about their vaccination history since arriving in the UK as adults. Few participants mentioned being offered specific catch-up vaccines (e.g. MMR/Td-IPV) when attending a healthcare facility on arrival in the UK. Vaccines such as flu vaccines, pregnancy-related or pre-travel vaccination were more commonly mentioned. In general, participants were not aware of adult catch-up vaccination but regarded it positively when it was explained. A few participants expressed concerns about side-effects, risks/inconveniences associated with access (e.g. links to immigration authorities, travel costs), preference for natural remedies, and hesitancy to engage in further vaccination campaigns due to the intensity of COVID-19 vaccination campaigns. Trust was a major factor in vaccination decisions, with distinctions noted within and between groups; some held a healthcare professional's recommendation in high regard, while others were less trusting towards the healthcare system because of negative experiences of the NHS and past experiences of discrimination, injustice and marginalisation by wider authorities. CONCLUSIONS: The major barrier to adult catch-up vaccination for missed routine immunisations and doses in migrant communities in the UK is the limited opportunities, recommendations or tailored vaccination information presented to migrants by health services. This could be improved with financial incentives for provision of catch-up vaccination in UK primary care, alongside training of healthcare professionals to support catch-up immunisation and raise awareness of existing guidelines. It will also be essential to address root causes of mistrust around vaccination, where it exists among migrants, by working closely with communities to understand their needs and meaningfully involving migrant populations in co-producing tailored information campaigns and culturally relevant interventions to improve coverage.

Strengthening life-course immunisation in migrant populations: access, equity, and inclusion.

Adult and adolescent migrants worldwide, and those arriving in Europe, are an under-immunised group for routine vaccinations due to missed childhood vaccines and doses in their countries of origin, and their subsequent marginalisation from health and vaccination systems. Declining population-level coverage for routine vaccines across Europe, which has accelerated post-pandemic, places these and other under-immunised populations at even greater risk of vaccine-preventable diseases. However, despite clear guidelines around the importance of delivering 'catch-up' vaccination throughout the life-course, migrants are rarely effectively incorporated into routine vaccination programmes on arrival to Europe. These populations have subsequently been involved in outbreaks, including measles and diphtheria, and are missing opportunities to receive more recently introduced vaccines such as HPV to align them with European vaccine schedules. WHO's new Immunization Agenda 2030 places a renewed emphasis on equitable access to vaccine systems and integrating catch-up vaccination for missed vaccines and doses throughout the life-course. In addition, lessons learned and innovations from the COVID-19 pandemic merit further consideration in the design and delivery of more inclusive vaccination programmes. We describe current gaps in policy and practice around life-course vaccination in migrant populations, key factors that drive low vaccine uptake and coverage, and explore the benefits of participatory approaches to designing and delivering interventions with impacted communities, to define new strategies to advance vaccine equity across the Region.

The immune status of migrant populations in Europe and implications for vaccine-preventable disease control: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring vaccination coverage reaches established herd immunity thresholds (HITs) is the cornerstone of any vaccination programme. Diverse migrant populations in European countries have been associated with cases of vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) and outbreaks, yet it is not clear to what extent they are an under-immunized group. METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize peer-reviewed published primary research reporting data on the immune status of migrants in EU/EEA countries, the UK and Switzerland, calculating their pooled immunity coverage for measles, mumps, rubella and diphtheria using random-effects models. We searched on Web of Science, Embase, Global Health and MEDLINE (1 January 2000 to 10 June 2022), with no language restrictions. The protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018103666). FINDINGS: Of 1103 abstracts screened, 62 met eligibility criteria, of which 39 were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis included 75 089 migrants, predominantly from outside Europe. Pooled immunity coverage among migrant populations was well below the recommended HIT for diphtheria (n = 7, 57.4% [95% confidence interval (CI): 43.1-71.7%] I2 = 99% vs HIT 83-86%), measles (n = 21, 83.7% [95% CI: 79.2-88.2] I2 = 99% vs HIT 93-95%) and mumps (n = 8, 67.1% [95% CI: 50.6-83.6] I2 = 99% vs HIT 88-93%) and midway for rubella (n = 29, 85.6% [95% CI: 83.1-88.1%] I2 = 99% vs HIT 83-94%), with high heterogeneity across studies. INTERPRETATION: Migrants in Europe are an under-immunized group for a range of important VPDs, with this study reinforcing the importance of engaging children, adolescents and adults in 'catch-up' vaccination initiatives on arrival for vaccines, doses and boosters they may have missed in their home countries. Co-designing strategies to strengthen catch-up vaccination across the life course in under-immunized groups is an important next step if we are to meet European and global targets for VPD elimination and control and ensure vaccine equity.

Multi-infection screening for migrant patients in UK primary care: Challenges and opportunities.

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

Long-term healthcare utilisation, costs and quality of life after invasive group B Streptococcus disease: a cohort study in five low-income and middle-income countries.

INTRODUCTION: There are no published data on the long-term impact of invasive group B Streptococcus disease (iGBS) on economic costs or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in low-income and middle-income countries. We assessed the impact of iGBS on healthcare utilisation, costs and HRQoL in Argentina, India, Kenya, Mozambique and South Africa. METHODS: Inpatient and outpatient visits, out-of-pocket (OOP) healthcare payments in the 12 months before study enrolment, and health-state utility of children and caregivers (using the EuroQol 5-Dimensions-3-Level) were collected from iGBS survivors and an unexposed cohort matched on site, age at recruitment and sex. We used logistic or Poisson regression for analysing healthcare utilisation and zero-inflated gamma regression models for family and health system costs. For HRQoL, we used a zero-inflated beta model of disutility pooled data. RESULTS: 161 iGBS-exposed and 439 unexposed children and young adults (age 1-20) were included in the analysis. Compared with unexposed participants, iGBS was associated with increased odds of any healthcare utilisation in India (adjusted OR 11.2, 95% CI 2.9 to 43.1) and Mozambique (6.8, 95% CI 2.2 to 21.1) and more frequent healthcare visits (adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) for India 1.7 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.2) and for Mozambique 6.0 (95% CI 3.2 to 11.2)). iGBS was also associated with more frequent days in inpatient care in India (adjusted IRR 4.0 (95% CI 2.3 to 6.8) and Kenya 6.4 (95% CI 2.9 to 14.3)). OOP payments were higher in the iGBS cohort in India (adjusted mean: Int$682.22 (95% CI Int$364.28 to Int$1000.16) vs Int$133.95 (95% CI Int$72.83 to Int$195.06)) and Argentina (Int$244.86 (95% CI Int$47.38 to Int$442.33) vs Int$52.38 (95% CI Int$-1.39 to Int$106.1)). For all remaining sites, differences were in the same direction but not statistically significant for almost all outcomes. Health-state disutility was higher in iGBS survivors (0.08, 0.04-0.13 vs 0.06, 0.02-0.10). CONCLUSION: The iGBS health and economic burden may persist for years after acute disease. Larger studies are needed for more robust estimates to inform the cost-effectiveness of iGBS prevention.

Defining indicators for disease burden, health outcomes, policies and barriers and facilitators to health services for migrant populations in the Middle East and North African region: a protocol for a suite of systematic reviews.

INTRODUCTION: The Middle East and North African (MENA) region is characterised by high and complex migration flows, yet little is known about the health of migrant populations, their levels of underimmunisation and access to healthcare provision. Data are needed to support regional elimination and control targets for key diseases and the design and delivery of programmes to improve health outcomes in these groups. This protocol describes a suite of seven systematic reviews that aim to identify, appraise and synthesise the available evidence on the burden and health outcomes, policies and access (barriers and facilitators) related to these mobile populations in the region. METHODS: Seven systematic reviews will cover three questions to explore the: (1) burden and health outcomes, (2) policies and (3) healthcare barriers and facilitators for the following seven disease areas in migrants in the MENA region: tuberculosis, HIV and hepatitis B and C, malaria and neglected tropical diseases, diabetes, mental health, maternal and neonatal health, and vaccine-preventable diseases. We will search electronic databases for studies in any language (year 2000-2023), reference-check relevant publications and cross-check included studies with experts. We will search for grey literature by hand searching key databases and websites (including regional organisations and MoH websites) for country-specific guidelines and talking to our network of experts for local and regional reports and key datasets. We will assess the studies and policies for their quality using appropriate tools. We will meta-analyse the data by disease outcome if they are of sufficient volume and similarity. Where meta-analysis is not possible and where data are on policy or access, we will narratively synthesise the evidence using summary tables, figures and text. DISSEMINATION: We anticipate disseminating the findings through peer-reviewed publications, conferences and other formats relevant to all stakeholders. We are following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and protocols will be registered on International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews.

Policy-making and implementation for newborn bloodspot screening in Europe: a comparison between EURORDIS principles and UK practice.

Newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) policy is a contentious area in Europe. Variation in the screening panels on offer, in the approach to evidence assessment and in the use of health economic modelling are some of the issues which are debated on the topic. In this paper we focus on a set of patient-driven principles for newborn screening published by EURORDIS and use these as a reference point for exploration and comparison with NBS policy development and screening practice in the UK. In doing so, we share UK practice; we note the UK is generally well aligned with many of the recommended principles, but we also discuss areas of controversy and challenges. Some of these, like 'actionability', will undoubtedly continue to be debated and may never reach consensus. For others, such as patient and public voice participation in newborn screening systems, there are opportunities to continue improving existing processes and developing new mechanisms for stakeholder participation. Screening bodies in other European countries should also compare their policy-making and implementation practices with the EURORDIS principles to stimulate further discussion on the challenges and opportunities of newborn screening and provide a cross-European baseline.

Test accuracy of artificial intelligence-based grading of fundus images in diabetic retinopathy screening: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI)-based systems for grading of fundus images in diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and the ClinicalTrials.gov from 1st January 2000 to 27th August 2021. Accuracy studies published in English were included if they met the pre-specified inclusion criteria. Selection of studies for inclusion, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted by one author with a second reviewer independently screening and checking 20% of titles. Results were analysed narratively. RESULTS: Forty-three studies evaluating 15 deep learning (DL) and 4 machine learning (ML) systems were included. Nine systems were evaluated in a single study each. Most studies were judged to be at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one QUADAS-2 domain. Sensitivity for referable DR and higher grades was ≥85% while specificity varied and was <80% for all ML systems and in 6/31 studies evaluating DL systems. Studies reported high accuracy for detection of ungradable images, but the latter were analysed and reported inconsistently. Seven studies reported that AI was more sensitive but less specific than human graders. CONCLUSIONS: AI-based systems are more sensitive than human graders and could be safe to use in clinical practice but have variable specificity. However, for many systems evidence is limited, at high risk of bias and may not generalise across settings. Therefore, pre-implementation assessment in the target clinical pathway is essential to obtain reliable and applicable accuracy estimates.