Identifying interventions with Gypsies, Roma and Travellers to promote immunisation uptake: methodological approach and findings.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller (GRT) communities are generally considered to be at risk of low or variable immunisation uptake. Many strategies to increase uptake for the general population are relevant for GRT communities, however additional approaches may also be required, and importantly one cannot assume that "one size fits all". Robust methods are needed to identify content and methods of delivery that are likely to be acceptable, feasible, effective and cost effective. In this paper, we describe the approach taken to identify potential interventions to increase uptake of immunisations in six GRT communities in four UK cities; and present the list of prioritised interventions that emerged. METHODS: This work was conducted in three stages: (1) a modified intervention mapping process to identify ideas for potential interventions; (2) a two-step prioritisation activity at workshops with 51 GRTs and 25 Service Providers to agree a prioritised list of potentially feasible and acceptable interventions for each community; (3) cross-community synthesis to produce a final list of interventions. The theoretical framework underpinning the study was the Social Ecological Model. RESULTS: Five priority interventions were agreed across communities and Service Providers to improve the uptake of immunisation amongst GRTs who are housed or settled on an authorised site. These interventions are all at the Institutional (e.g. cultural competence training) and Policy (e.g. protected funding) levels of the Social Ecological Model. CONCLUSIONS: The "upstream" nature of the five interventions reinforces the key role of GP practices, frontline workers and wider NHS systems on improving immunisation uptake. All five interventions have potentially broader applicability than GRTs. We believe that their impact would be enhanced if delivered as a combined package. The robust intervention development and co-production methods described could usefully be applied to other communities where poor uptake of immunisation is a concern. STUDY REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20019630, Date of registration 01-08-2013, Prospectively registered.

Engaging Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller Communities in Research: Maximizing Opportunities and Overcoming Challenges.

Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller people are marginalized worldwide and experience severe health inequalities, even in comparison to other ethnic minority groups. While diverse and hard to categorize, these communities are highly cohesive and members have a strong sense of identity as a group apart from the majority population. Researchers commonly experience challenges in accessing, recruiting, and retaining research participants from these communities, linked to their outsider status, insular nature, and history of discrimination. In this article, the challenges and the opportunities of engaging Gypsies, Roma, and Travellers in a multicenter qualitative research project are discussed. The management of public involvement and community engagement in this U.K.-based project provides insights into conducting research effectively with ethnically and linguistically diverse communities, often considered to be "hard to reach."

Assessing the impact of care farms on quality of life and offending: a pilot study among probation service users in England.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of conducting a cost-effectiveness study of using care farms (CFs) to improve quality of life and reduce reoffending among offenders undertaking community orders (COs). To pilot questionnaires to assess quality of life, connection to nature, lifestyle behaviours, health and social-care use. To assess recruitment and retention at 6 months and feasibility of data linkage to Police National Computer (PNC) reconvictions data and data held by probation services. DESIGN: Pilot study using questionnaires to assess quality of life, individually linked to police and probation data. SETTING: The pilot study was conducted in three probation service regions in England. Each site included a CF and at least one comparator CO project. CFs are working farms used with a range of clients, including offenders, for therapeutic purposes. The three CFs included one aquaponics and horticulture social enterprise, a religious charity focusing on horticulture and a family-run cattle farm. Comparator projects included sorting secondhand clothes and activities to address alcohol misuse and anger management. PARTICIPANTS: We recruited 134 adults (over 18) serving COs in England, 29% female. RESULTS: 52% of participants completed follow-up questionnaires. Privatisation of UK probation trusts in 2014 negatively impacted on recruitment and retention. Linkage to PNC data was a more successful means of follow-up, with 90% consenting to access their probation and PNC data. Collection of health and social-care costs and quality-adjusted life year derivation were feasible. Propensity score adjustment provided a viable comparison method despite differences between comparators. We found worse health and higher reoffending risk among CF participants due to allocation of challenging offenders to CFs, making risk of reoffending a confounder. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment would be feasible in a more stable probation environment. Follow-up was challenging; however, assessing reconvictions from PNC data is feasible and a potential primary outcome for future studies.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for falls prevention in older people: a multicentre cohort randomised controlled trial (the REducing Falls with ORthoses and a Multifaceted podiatry intervention trial).

BACKGROUND: Falls are a serious cause of morbidity and cost to individuals and society. Evidence suggests that foot problems and inappropriate footwear may increase the risk of falling. Podiatric interventions could help reduce falls; however, there is limited evidence regarding their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for preventing falls in community-dwelling older people at risk of falling, relative to usual care. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentred, cohort randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation and qualitative study. SETTING: Nine NHS trusts in the UK and one site in Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 1010 participants aged ≥ 65 years were randomised (intervention, n = 493; usual care, n = 517) via a secure, remote service. Blinding was not possible. INTERVENTIONS: All participants received a falls prevention leaflet and routine care from their podiatrist and general practitioner. The intervention also consisted of footwear advice, footwear provision if required, foot orthoses and foot- and ankle-strengthening exercises. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the incidence rate of falls per participant in the 12 months following randomisation. The secondary outcomes included the proportion of fallers and multiple fallers, time to first fall, fear of falling, fracture rate, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The primary analysis consisted of 484 (98.2%) intervention and 507 (98.1%) usual-care participants. There was a non-statistically significant reduction in the incidence rate of falls in the intervention group [adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.05; p = 0.16]. The proportion of participants experiencing a fall was lower (50% vs. 55%, adjusted odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.00; p = 0.05). No differences were observed in key secondary outcomes. No serious, unexpected and related adverse events were reported. The intervention costs £252.17 more per participant (95% CI -£69.48 to £589.38) than usual care, was marginally more beneficial in terms of HRQoL measured via the EuroQoL-5 Dimensions [mean quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) difference 0.0129, 95% CI -0.0050 to 0.0314 QALYs] and had a 65% probability of being cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained. The intervention was generally acceptable to podiatrists and trial participants. LIMITATIONS: Owing to the difficulty in calculating a sample size for a count outcome, the sample size was based on detecting a difference in the proportion of participants experiencing at least one fall, and not the primary outcome. We are therefore unable to confirm if the trial was sufficiently powered for the primary outcome. The findings are not generalisable to patients who are not receiving podiatry care. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was safe and potentially effective. Although the primary outcome measure did not reach significance, a lower fall rate was observed in the intervention group. The reduction in the proportion of older adults who experienced a fall was of borderline statistical significance. The economic evaluation suggests that the intervention could be cost-effective. FUTURE WORK: Further research could examine whether or not the intervention could be delivered in group sessions, by physiotherapists, or in high-risk patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN68240461. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Needles, Jabs and Jags: a qualitative exploration of barriers and facilitators to child and adult immunisation uptake among Gypsies, Travellers and Roma.

BACKGROUND: Gypsies, Travellers and Roma (referred to as Travellers) are less likely to access health services including immunisation. To improve immunisation rates, it is necessary to understand what helps and hinders individuals in these communities in taking up immunisations. This study had two aims. 1. Investigate the views of Travellers in the UK on the barriers and facilitators to acceptability and uptake of immunisations and explore their ideas for improving immunisation uptake; 2. Examine whether and how these responses vary across and within communities, and for different vaccines (childhood and adult). METHODS: This was a qualitative, cross-sectional interview study informed by the Social Ecological Model. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 174 Travellers from six communities: Romanian Roma, English Gypsy/Irish Travellers (Bristol), English Gypsy (York), Romanian/Slovakian Roma, Scottish Show people (Glasgow) and Irish Traveller (London). The focus was childhood and selected adult vaccines. Data were analysed using the Framework approach. RESULTS: Common accounts of barriers and facilitators were identified across all six Traveller communities, similar to those documented for the general population. All Roma communities experienced additional barriers of language and being in a new country. Men and women described similar barriers and facilitators although women spoke more of discrimination and low literacy. There was broad acceptance of childhood and adult immunisation across and within communities, with current parents perceived as more positive than their elders. A minority of English-speaking Travellers worried about multiple/combined childhood vaccines, adult flu and whooping cough and described barriers to booking and attending immunisation. Cultural concerns about antenatal vaccines and HPV vaccination were most evident in the Bristol English Gypsy/Irish Traveller community. Language, literacy, discrimination, poor school attendance, poverty and housing were identified as barriers across different communities. Trustful relationships with health professionals were important and continuity of care valued. CONCLUSIONS: The experience of many Travellers in this study, and the context through which they make health decisions, is changing. This large study identified key issues that should be considered when taking action to improve uptake of immunisations in Traveller families and reduce the persistent inequalities in coverage. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20019630 .

UNderstanding uptake of Immunisations in TravellIng aNd Gypsy communities (UNITING): a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Gypsies, Travellers and Roma (referred to as Travellers) are less likely to access health services, including immunisation. To improve immunisation rates, we need to understand what helps and hinders individuals in these communities in taking up immunisations. AIMS: (1) Investigate the barriers to and facilitators of acceptability and uptake of immunisations among six Traveller communities across four UK cities; and (2) identify possible interventions to increase uptake of immunisations in these Traveller communities that could be tested in a subsequent feasibility study. METHODS: Three-phase qualitative study underpinned by the social ecological model. Phase 1: interviews with 174 Travellers from six communities: Romanian Roma (Bristol); English Gypsy/Irish Traveller (Bristol); English Gypsy (York); Romanian/Slovakian Roma (Glasgow); Scottish Showpeople (Glasgow); and Irish Traveller (London). Focus on childhood and adult vaccines. Phase 2: interviews with 39 service providers. Data were analysed using the framework approach. Interventions were identified using a modified intervention mapping approach. Phase 3: 51 Travellers and 25 service providers attended workshops and produced a prioritised list of potentially acceptable and feasible interventions. RESULTS: There were many common accounts of barriers and facilitators across communities, particularly across the English-speaking communities. Scottish Showpeople were the most similar to the general population. Roma communities experienced additional barriers of language and being in a new country. Men, women and service providers described similar barriers and facilitators. There was widespread acceptance of childhood and adult immunisation, with current parents perceived as more positive than their elders. A minority of English-speaking Travellers worried about multiple/combined childhood vaccines, adult flu and whooping cough. Cultural concerns about vaccines offered during pregnancy and about human papillomavirus were most evident in the Bristol English Gypsy/Irish Traveller community. Language, literacy, discrimination, poor school attendance, poverty and housing were identified by Travellers and service providers as barriers for some. Trustful relationships with health professionals were important and continuity of care was valued. A few English-speaking Travellers described problems of booking and attending for immunisation. Service providers tailored their approach to Travellers, particularly the Roma. Funding cuts, NHS reforms and poor monitoring challenged their work. Five 'top-priority' interventions were agreed across communities and service providers to improve the immunisation among Travellers who are housed or settled on an authorised site: (1) cultural competence training for health professionals and frontline staff; (2) identification of Travellers in health records to tailor support and monitor uptake; (3) provision of a named frontline person in general practitioner practices to provide respectful and supportive service; (4) flexible and diverse systems for booking appointments, recall and reminders; and (5) protected funding for health visitors specialising in Traveller health, including immunisation. LIMITATIONS: No Travellers living on the roadside or on unofficial encampments were interviewed. We should exert caution in generalising to these groups. FUTURE WORK: To include development, implementation and evaluation of a national policy plan (and practice guidance plan) to promote the uptake of immunisation among Traveller communities. STUDY REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20019630 and UK Clinical Research Network Portfolio number 15182. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 72. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.