COVID-19 vaccination coverage for half a million non-EU migrants and refugees in England.

Despite evidence suggesting that some migrants are at risk of under-immunization and have experienced severe health inequities during the pandemic, data are limited on migrants' COVID-19 vaccine coverage globally. Here we linked data from non-European Union migrants and resettled refugees to the national COVID-19 vaccination dataset in England. We estimated patterns in second and third dose delays and overdue doses between 12 December 2020 and 20 April 2022 by age, visa type and ethnicity. Of the 465,470 linked records, 91.8% (427,073/465,470) of migrants received a second dose and 51.3% (238,721/465,470) received a third. Refugees had the highest risk of delayed second (adjusted odds ratio 1.66; 95% confidence interval 1.55-1.79) and third dose (1.55; 1.43-1.69). Black migrants were twice as likely to have a second dose delayed (2.37; 2.23-2.54) than white migrants, but this trend reversed for the third dose. Older migrants (>65 years) were four times less likely to have received their second or third dose compared with the general population in England aged >65 or older. Policymakers, researchers and practitioners should work to understand and address personal and structural barriers to vaccination for diverse migrant populations.

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).

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.

Small numbers, big impact: making a utilitarian case for the contribution of inclusion health to population health in England.

Inclusion health groups make up a small proportion of the general population, so despite the extreme social exclusion and poor health outcomes that these groups experience, they are often overlooked in public health investment and policy development. In this paper, we demonstrate that a utilitarian argument can be made for investment in better support for inclusion health groups despite their small size. That is, by preventing social exclusion, there is the potential for large aggregate health benefits to the whole population. We illustrate this by reframing existing published mortality estimates into population attributable fractions to show that 12% of all-cause premature deaths (95% CI 10.03% to 14.29%) are attributable to the circumstances of people who experience homelessness, use drugs and/or have been in prison. We also show that a large proportion of cause-specific premature deaths in the general population can be attributed to specific inclusion health groups, such as 43% of deaths due to viral hepatitis (95% CI 30.35% to 56.61%) and nearly 4000 deaths due to cancer (3844, 95% CI 3438 to 4285) between 2013 and 2021 attributed to individuals who use illicit opioids. Considering the complexity of the inclusion health policy context and the sparseness of evidence, we discuss how a shift in policy framing from 'inclusion health vs the rest of the population' to 'the impact of social exclusion on broader population health' makes a better case for increased policy attention and investment in inclusion health. We discuss the strengths and limitations of this approach and how it can be applied to public health policy, resource prioritisation and future 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.

Hospital-based preventative interventions for people experiencing homelessness in high-income countries: A systematic review.

Background: People experiencing homelessness have significant unmet needs and high rates of unplanned care. We aimed to describe preventative interventions, defined in their broadest sense, for people experiencing homelessness in a hospital context. Secondary aims included mapping outcomes and assessing intervention effectiveness. Methods: We searched online databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, HMIC, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library) from 1999-2019 and conducted backward and forward citation searches to 31 December 2020 (PROSPERO CRD42019154036). We included quantitative studies in emergency and inpatient settings measuring health or social outcomes for adults experiencing homelessness in high income countries. We assessed rigour using the "Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies" and summarised findings using descriptive quantitative methods, a binomial test, a Harvest Plot, and narrative synthesis. We used PRISMA and SWiM reporting guidelines. Findings: Twenty-eight studies identified eight intervention types: care coordination (n=18); advocacy, support, and outreach (n=13); social welfare assistance (n=13); discharge planning (n=12); homelessness identification (n=6); psychological therapy and treatment (n=6); infectious disease prevention (n=5); and screening, treatment, and referrals (n=5). The evidence strength was weak (n=16) to moderate (n=10), with two high quality randomised controlled trials. We identified six outcome categories with potential benefits observed for psychosocial outcomes, including housing (11/13 studies, 95%CI=54.6-98.1%, p=0.023), healthcare use (14/17, 56.6-96.2%, p=0.013), and healthcare costs (8/8, 63.1-100%, p=0.008). Benefits were less likely for health outcomes (4/5, 28.3-99.5%, p=0.375), integration with onward care (2/4, 6.8-93.2%, p=1.000), and feasibility/acceptability (5/6, 35.9-99.6%, p=0.219), but confidence intervals were very wide. We observed no harms. Most studies showing potential benefits were multi-component interventions. Interpretation: Hospital-based preventative interventions for people experiencing homelessness are potentially beneficial, but more rigorous research is needed. In the context of high needs and extreme inequities, policymakers and healthcare providers may consider implementing multi-component preventative interventions. Funding: SL is supported by an NIHR Clinical Doctoral Research Fellowship (ICA-CDRF-2016-02-042). JD is supported by an NIHR School of Public Health Research Pre-doctoral Fellowship (NU-004252). RWA is supported by a Wellcome Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship (206602).

The economic case for hospital discharge services for people experiencing homelessness in England: An in-depth analysis with different service configurations providing specialist care.

There are long-standing concerns that people experiencing homelessness may not recover well if left unsupported after a hospital stay. This study reports on a study investigating the cost-effectiveness of three different 'in patient care coordination and discharge planning' configurations for adults experiencing homelessness who are discharged from hospitals in England. The first configuration provided a clinical and housing in-reach service during acute care and discharge coordination but with no 'step-down' care. The second configuration provided clinical and housing in-reach, discharge coordination and 'step-down' intermediate care. The third configuration consisted of housing support workers providing in-reach and discharge coordination as well as step-down care. These three configurations were each compared with 'standard care' (control, defined as one visit by the homelessness health nurse before discharge during which patients received an information leaflet on local services). Multiple sources of data and multi-outcome measures were adopted to assess the cost utility of hospital discharge service delivery for the NHS and broader public perspective. Details of 354 participants were collated on service delivery costs (salary, on-costs, capital, overheads and 'hotel' costs, advertising and other indirect costs), the economic consequences for different public services (e.g. NHS, social care, criminal justice, housing, etc.) and health utilities (quality-adjusted-life-years, QALYs). Findings were complex across the configurations, but, on the whole, there was promising evidence suggesting that, with delivery costs similar to those reported for bed-based intermediate care, step-down care secured better health outcomes and improved cost-effectiveness (compared with usual care) within NICE cost-effectiveness recommendations.

Design of financial incentive interventions to improve lifestyle behaviors and health outcomes: A systematic review.

Background: Financial incentives may improve the initiation and engagement of behaviour change that reduce the negative outcomes associated with non-communicable diseases. There is still a paucity in guidelines or recommendations that help define key aspects of incentive-oriented interventions, including the type of incentive (e.g. cash rewards, vouchers), the frequency and magnitude of the incentive, and its mode of delivery.  We aimed to systematically review the literature on financial incentives that promote healthy lifestyle behaviours or improve health profiles, and focused on the methodological approach to define the incentive intervention and its delivery. The protocol was registered at PROSPERO on 26 July 2018 ( CRD42018102556). Methods: We sought studies in which a financial incentive was delivered to improve a health-related lifestyle behaviour (e.g., physical activity) or a health profile (e.g., HbA1c in people with diabetes). The search (which took place on March 3 rd 2018) was conducted using OVID (MEDLINE and Embase), CINAHL and Scopus. Results: The search yielded 7,575 results and 37 were included for synthesis. Of the total, 83.8% (31/37) of the studies were conducted in the US, and 40.5% (15/37) were randomised controlled trials. Only one study reported the background and rationale followed to develop the incentive and conducted a focus group to understand what sort of incentives would be acceptable for their study population. There was a degree of consistency across the studies in terms of the direction, form, certainty, and recipient of the financial incentives used, but the magnitude and immediacy of the incentives were heterogeneous. Conclusions: The available literature on financial incentives to improve health-related lifestyles rarely reports on the rationale or background that defines the incentive approach, the magnitude of the incentive and other relevant details of the intervention, and the reporting of this information is essential to foster its use as potential effective interventions.

Migration health research in the United Kingdom: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: One in seven people living in the United Kingdom (UK) is an international migrant, rendering migrants an important population group with diverse and dynamic health and healthcare needs. However, there has been no attempt to map contemporary trends within migration health research conducted in the UK. The aim of this scoping review was to describe trends within migration health research and identify gaps for future research agendas. METHODS: PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for empirical research with a primary focus on the concepts "health" and "migrants" published between 2001 and 2019. Findings were analysed using the UCL-Lancet Commission on Migration and Health Conceptual Framework for Migration and Health. RESULTS: In total, 399 studies were included, with almost half (41.1%; 164/399) published in the last five years of the study period between 2015 and 2019 and a third (34.1%; 136/399) conducted in London. Studies included asylum seekers (14.8%; 59/399), refugees (12.3%; 49/399), and undocumented migrants or migrants with insecure status (3.5%; 14/399), but most articles (74.9%; 299/399) did not specify a migrant sub-group. The most studied health topics were specific disease outcomes such as infectious diseases (24.1% of studies) and mental health (19.1%) compared to examining systems or structures that impact health (27.8%), access to healthcare (26.3%), or specific exposures or behaviours (35.3%). CONCLUSIONS: There has been a growing interest in migration health. Ensuring a diverse geographic distribution of research conducted in the UK and disaggregation by migrant sub-group is required for a nuanced and region-specific understanding of specific health needs, interventions and appropriate service delivery for different migrant populations. More research is needed to understand how migration policy and legislation intersect with both the social determinants of health and access to healthcare to shape the health of migrants in the UK.

International migration of unaccompanied minors: trends, health risks, and legal protection.

The global population of unaccompanied minors-children and adolescents younger than 18 years who migrate without their legal guardians-is increasing. However, as data are not systematically collected in any region, if collected at all, little is known about this diverse group of young people. Compared with adult migrants, unaccompanied minors are at greater risk of harm to their health and integrity because they do not have the protection provided by a family, which can affect their short-term and long-term health. This Review summarises evidence regarding the international migration and health of unaccompanied minors. Unaccompanied minors are entitled to protection that should follow their best interests as a primary consideration; however, detention, sometimes under the guise of protection, is a widespread practice. If these minors are provided with appropriate forms of protection, including health and psychosocial care, they can thrive and have good long-term outcomes. Instead, hostile immigration practices persist, which are not in the best interests of the child.

Peer advocacy and access to healthcare for people who are homeless in London, UK: a mixed method impact, economic and process evaluation protocol.

INTRODUCTION: People who are homeless experience higher morbidity and mortality than the general population. These outcomes are exacerbated by inequitable access to healthcare. Emerging evidence suggests a role for peer advocates-that is, trained volunteers with lived experience-to support people who are homeless to access healthcare. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We plan to conduct a mixed methods evaluation to assess the effects (qualitative, cohort and economic studies); processes and contexts (qualitative study); fidelity; and acceptability and reach (process study) of Peer Advocacy on people who are homeless and on peers themselves in London, UK. People with lived experience of homelessness are partners in the design, execution, analysis and dissemination of the evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval for all study designs has been granted by the National Health Service London-Dulwich Research Ethics Committee (UK) and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine's Ethics Committee (UK). We plan to disseminate study progress and outputs via a website, conference presentations, community meetings and peer-reviewed journal articles.

Health of people experiencing co-occurring homelessness, imprisonment, substance use, sex work and/or severe mental illness in high-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: People affected by homelessness, imprisonment, substance use, sex work or severe mental illness experience substantial excess ill health and premature death. Though these experiences often co-occur, health outcomes associated with their overlap have not previously been reviewed. We synthesised existing evidence on mortality, morbidity, self-rated health and quality of life among people affected by more than one of these experiences. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO for peer-reviewed English-language observational studies from high-income countries published between 1 January 1998 and 11 June 2018. Two authors undertook independent screening, with risk of bias assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Findings were summarised by narrative synthesis and random-effect meta-analysis. RESULTS: From 15 976 citations, 2517 studies underwent full-text screening, and 444 were included. The most common exposure combinations were imprisonment/substance use (31% of data points) and severe mental illness/substance use (27%); only 1% reported outcomes associated with more than two exposures. Infections were the most common outcomes studied, with blood-borne viruses accounting for 31% of all data points. Multiple exposures were associated with poorer outcomes in 80% of data points included (sign test for effect direction, p<0.001). Meta-analysis suggested increased all-cause mortality among people with multiple versus fewer exposures (HR: 1.57 and 95% CI: 1.38 to 1.77), though heterogeneity was high. CONCLUSION: People affected by multiple exclusionary processes experience profound health inequalities, though there are important gaps in the research landscape. Addressing the health needs of these populations is likely to require co-ordinated action across multiple sectors, such as healthcare, criminal justice, drug treatment, housing and social security. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018097189.

COVID-19 among people experiencing homelessness in England: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: People experiencing homelessness are vulnerable to COVID-19 due to the risk of transmission in shared accommodation and the high prevalence of comorbidities. In England, as in some other countries, preventive policies have been implemented to protect this population. We aimed to estimate the avoided deaths and health-care use among people experiencing homelessness during the so-called first wave of COVID-19 in England-ie, the peak of infections occurring between February and May, 2020-and the potential impact of COVID-19 on this population in the future. METHODS: We used a discrete-time Markov chain model of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection that included compartments for susceptible, exposed, infectious, and removed individuals, to explore the impact of the pandemic on 46 565 individuals experiencing homelessness: 35 817 living in 1065 hostels for homeless people, 3616 sleeping in 143 night shelters, and 7132 sleeping outside. We ran the model under scenarios varying the incidence of infection in the general population and the availability of prevention measures: specialist hotel accommodation, infection control in homeless settings, and mixing with the general population. We divided our scenarios into first wave scenarios (covering Feb 1-May 31, 2020) and future scenarios (covering June 1, 2020-Jan 31, 2021). For each scenario, we ran the model 200 times and reported the median and 95% prediction interval (2·5% and 97·5% quantiles) of the total number of cases, the number of deaths, the number hospital admissions, and the number of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. FINDINGS: Up to May 31, 2020, we calibrated the model to 4% of the homeless population acquiring SARS-CoV-2, and estimated that 24 deaths (95% prediction interval 16-34) occurred. In this first wave of SARS-CoV-2 infections in England, we estimated that the preventive measures imposed might have avoided 21 092 infections (19 777-22 147), 266 deaths (226-301), 1164 hospital admissions (1079-1254), and 338 ICU admissions (305-374) among the homeless population. If preventive measures are continued, we projected a small number of additional cases between June 1, 2020, and Jan 31, 2021, with 1754 infections (1543-1960), 31 deaths (21-45), 122 hospital admissions (100-148), and 35 ICU admissions (23-47) with a second wave in the general population. However, if preventive measures are lifted, outbreaks in homeless settings might lead to larger numbers of infections and deaths, even with low incidence in the general population. In a scenario with no second wave and relaxed measures in homeless settings in England, we projected 12 151 infections (10 718-13 349), 184 deaths (151-217), 733 hospital admissions (635-822), and 213 ICU admissions (178-251) between June 1, 2020, and Jan 31, 2021. INTERPRETATION: Outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 in homeless settings can lead to a high attack rate among people experiencing homelessness, even if incidence remains low in the general population. Avoidance of deaths depends on prevention of transmission within settings such as hostels and night shelters. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, Wellcome, and Medical Research Council.

Premature mortality attributable to socioeconomic inequality in England between 2003 and 2018: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Low socioeconomic position is consistently associated with increased risk of premature death. The aim of this study is to measure the aggregate scale of inequality in premature mortality for the whole population of England. METHODS: We used mortality records from the UK Office for National Statistics to study all 2 465 285 premature deaths (defined as those before age 75 years) in England between Jan 1, 2003, and Dec 31, 2018. Socioeconomic position was defined using deciles of the Index of Multiple Deprivation: a measure of neighbourhood income, employment, education levels, crime, health, availability of services, and local environment. We calculated the number of expected deaths by applying mortality in the least deprived decile to other deciles, within the strata of age, sex, and time. The mortality attributable to socioeconomic inequality was defined as the difference between the observed and expected deaths. We also used life table modelling to estimate years-of-life lost attributable to socioeconomic inequality. FINDINGS: 35·6% (95% CI 35·3-35·9) of premature deaths were attributable to socioeconomic inequality, equating to 877 082 deaths, or one every 10 min. The biggest contributors were ischaemic heart disease (152 171 excess deaths), respiratory cancers (111 083) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (83 593). The most unequal causes of death were tuberculosis, opioid use, HIV, psychoactive drugs use, viral hepatitis, and obesity, each with more than two-thirds attributable to inequality. Inequality was greater among men and peaked in early childhood and at age 40-49 years. The proportion of deaths attributable to inequality increased during the study period, particularly for women, because mortality rates among the most deprived women (excluding cardiovascular diseases) plateaued, and for some diseases increased. A mean of 14·4 months of life before age 75 years are lost due to socioeconomic inequality. INTERPRETATION: One in three premature deaths are attributable to socioeconomic inequality, making this our most important public health challenge. Interventions that address upstream determinants of health should be prioritised. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research; Wellcome Trust.

Effects of non-health-targeted policies on migrant health: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Government policies can strongly influence migrants' health. Using a Health in All Policies approach, we systematically reviewed evidence on the impact of public policies outside of the health-care system on migrant health. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases from Jan 1, 2000, to Sept 1, 2017, for quantitative studies comparing the health effects of non-health-targeted public policies on migrants with those on a relevant comparison population. We searched for articles written in English, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Finnish, French, Spanish, or Portuguese. Qualitative studies and grey literature were excluded. We evaluated policy effects by migration stage (entry, integration, and exit) and by health outcome using narrative synthesis (all included studies) and random-effects meta-analysis (all studies whose results were amenable to statistical pooling). We summarised meta-analysis outcomes as standardised mean difference (SMD, 95% CI) or odds ratio (OR, 95% CI). To assess certainty, we created tables containing a summary of the findings according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Our study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017076104. FINDINGS: We identified 43 243 potentially eligible records. 46 articles were narratively synthesised and 19 contributed to the meta-analysis. All studies were published in high-income countries and examined policies of entry (nine articles) and integration (37 articles). Restrictive entry policies (eg, temporary visa status, detention) were associated with poor mental health (SMD 0·44, 95% CI 0·13-0·75; I2=92·1%). In the integration phase, restrictive policies in general, and specifically regarding welfare eligibility and documentation requirements, were found to increase odds of poor self-rated health (OR 1·67, 95% CI 1·35-1·98; I2=82·0%) and mortality (1·38, 1·10-1·65; I2=98·9%). Restricted eligibility for welfare support decreased the odds of general health-care service use (0·92, 0·85-0·98; I2=0·0%), but did not reduce public health insurance coverage (0·89, 0·71-1·07; I2=99·4%), nor markedly affect proportions of people without health insurance (1·06, 0·90-1·21; I2=54·9%). INTERPRETATION: Restrictive entry and integration policies are linked to poor migrant health outcomes in high-income countries. Efforts to improve the health of migrants would benefit from adopting a Health in All Policies perspective. FUNDING: Swedish Council for Health, Working Life, and Social Research; UK Medical Research Council; Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office.

Changes in health in the countries of the UK and 150 English Local Authority areas 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have reported national and regional Global Burden of Disease (GBD) estimates for the UK. Because of substantial variation in health within the UK, action to improve it requires comparable estimates of disease burden and risks at country and local levels. The slowdown in the rate of improvement in life expectancy requires further investigation. We use GBD 2016 data on mortality, causes of death, and disability to analyse the burden of disease in the countries of the UK and within local authorities in England by deprivation quintile. METHODS: We extracted data from the GBD 2016 to estimate years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with disability (YLDs), disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and attributable risks from 1990 to 2016 for England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the UK, and 150 English Upper-Tier Local Authorities. We estimated the burden of disease by cause of death, condition, year, and sex. We analysed the association between burden of disease and socioeconomic deprivation using the Index of Multiple Deprivation. We present results for all 264 GBD causes of death combined and the leading 20 specific causes, and all 84 GBD risks or risk clusters combined and 17 specific risks or risk clusters. FINDINGS: The leading causes of age-adjusted YLLs in all UK countries in 2016 were ischaemic heart disease, lung cancers, cerebrovascular disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Age-standardised rates of YLLs for all causes varied by two times between local areas in England according to levels of socioeconomic deprivation (from 14 274 per 100 000 population [95% uncertainty interval 12 791-15 875] in Blackpool to 6888 [6145-7739] in Wokingham). Some Upper-Tier Local Authorities, particularly those in London, did better than expected for their level of deprivation. Allowing for differences in age structure, more deprived Upper-Tier Local Authorities had higher attributable YLLs for most major risk factors in the GBD. The population attributable fractions for all-cause YLLs for individual major risk factors varied across Upper-Tier Local Authorities. Life expectancy and YLLs have improved more slowly since 2010 in all UK countries compared with 1990-2010. In nine of 150 Upper-Tier Local Authorities, YLLs increased after 2010. For attributable YLLs, the rate of improvement slowed most substantially for cardiovascular disease and breast, colorectal, and lung cancers, and showed little change for Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. Morbidity makes an increasing contribution to overall burden in the UK compared with mortality. The age-standardised UK DALY rate for low back and neck pain (1795 [1258-2356]) was higher than for ischaemic heart disease (1200 [1155-1246]) or lung cancer (660 [642-679]). The leading causes of ill health (measured through YLDs) in the UK in 2016 were low back and neck pain, skin and subcutaneous diseases, migraine, depressive disorders, and sense organ disease. Age-standardised YLD rates varied much less than equivalent YLL rates across the UK, which reflects the relative scarcity of local data on causes of ill health. INTERPRETATION: These estimates at local, regional, and national level will allow policy makers to match resources and priorities to levels of burden and risk factors. Improvement in YLLs and life expectancy slowed notably after 2010, particularly in cardiovascular disease and cancer, and targeted actions are needed if the rate of improvement is to recover. A targeted policy response is also required to address the increasing proportion of burden due to morbidity, such as musculoskeletal problems and depression. Improving the quality and completeness of available data on these causes is an essential component of this response. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Public Health England.

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.