Global Health Perspectives on Race in Research: Neocolonial Extraction and Local Marginalization.

Best practices in global health training prioritize leadership and engagement from investigators from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), along with conscientious community consultation and research that benefits local participants and autochthonous communities. However, well into the 20th century, international research and clinical care remain rife with paternalism, extractive practices, and racist ideation, with race presumed to explain vulnerability or protection from various diseases, despite scientific evidence for far more precise mechanisms for infectious disease. We highlight experiences in global research on health and illness among indigenous populations in LMICs, seeking to clarify what is both scientifically essential and ethically desirable in research with human subjects; we apply a critical view towards race and racism as historically distorting elements that must be acknowledged and overcome.

Non-COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among migrant populations worldwide: a scoping review of the literature, 2000-2020.

INTRODUCTION: Migration can be linked to the transmission of vaccine-preventable diseases. Hence, monitoring migrants' vaccination-related concerns can inform needed interventions to support vaccine acceptance. AREAS COVERED: Along with Google and Google Scholar, we searched 13 bibliographic databases between 1 January 2000 and 10 October 2020, to identify published studies of vaccine hesitancy among migrant populations. From a total of 8,915 records, we screened 745 abstracts and included 112 eligible articles. We summarized extracted data using figures, tables, and narrations. Of the 112 articles, 109 were original quantitative (48%), qualitative (45%), and mixed-methods (7%) research, originating mainly from the United States (US) (68%), the United Kingdom (UK) (12%), and Scandinavia (6%). Most articles addressed human papillomavirus (63%), measles (13%), and influenzas (9%) vaccinations, and the leading sponsor of funded research was the US National Institutes of Health (50%). Discernable migrant groups with vaccine-specific concerns included Somali diasporas, UK-based Poles and Romanians, and US-based Haitians and Koreans. Among US-based Latina/Latino immigrants, lower vaccine uptake frequency was mostly associated with awareness levels, knowledge gaps, and uninsured status. EXPERT OPINION: Migrants' vaccine-related apprehensions may cascade well beyond their proximate social connections and influence vaccine attitudes and behaviors in their countries-of-origin.

Vaccine hesitancy in migrant communities: a rapid review of latest evidence.

By refusing or delaying vaccination, vaccine hesitant individuals and communities undermine the prevention, and ultimately, elimination of communicable diseases against which safe and effective vaccines are available. We reviewed recent evidence of vaccine hesitancy within migrant communities in the context of increased human mobility and widespread anti-immigrant sentiment and manifest xenophobia. Among many immigrant parents and families, vaccine hesitancy is largely associated with fears and misinformation about vaccine harms, limited knowledge of both preventable diseases and vaccines, distrust of host countries' health systems and their attendant intentions, language barriers, and perceived incompatibility between vaccine uptake and migrants' religion. Hesitancy toward measles, influenza, and human papillomavirus vaccines are most discernible, and main migrant populations involved include Somalis and Poles.

African Physician Migration to High-Income Nations: Diverse Motives to Emigrate ("We Are not Florence Nightingale") or Stay in Africa ("There Is No Place Like Home") Comment on "Doctor Retention: A Cross-sectional Study of How Ireland Has Been Losing the Battle".

Research in assessing the global and asymmetric flows of health workers in general, and international medical graduates in particular, is fraught with controversy. The complex goal of improving health status of the citizens of home nations while ensuring the right of health workers to migrate generates policy discussions and decisions that often are not adequately informed by evidence. In times of global public health crises like the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic, the need for equitable distribution and adequate training of health workers globally becomes even more pressing. Brugha et al report suboptimal training and working conditions among Irish and foreign medical doctors practicing in Ireland, while predicting large-scale outward migration. We comment on health personnel migration and retention based on our own experience in this area of research. Drawing from our examination of medical migration dynamics from sub-Saharan Africa, we argue for greater consideration of health workforce retention in research and policy related to resource-limited settings. The right to health suggests the need to retain healthcare providers whose education was typically subsidized by the home nation. The right to migrate may conflict with the right to health. Hence, a deeper understanding is needed as to healthcare worker motives based on interactions of psychosocial processes, economic and material determinants, and quality of work environments.

Taking stock of vaccine hesitancy among migrants: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: At the 72nd World Health Assembly of May 2019, WHO member states prioritised a global action plan to promote migrant and refugee health. Five months earlier, WHO had declared vaccine hesitancy-the reluctance to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccination services-as one of the top 10 threats to global health. Although vaccination is often a requirement for immigration, repeated outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases within certain immigrant communities in some host nations suggest that vaccine hesitancy could be a factor in their susceptibility to vaccine-preventable diseases. Studies of the prevalence and determinants of vaccine hesitancy among migrants globally seem to be lacking. This scoping review will (1) identify articles on vaccine hesitancy among migrants; (2) examine the extent and nature of the extant evidence; and (3) determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The framework for the scoping review proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute will be used. The reporting will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. Studies published in English or French between January 1999 and December 2019 will be drawn from most or all of the following multidisciplinary databases: Africa-Wide Information, Allied and Complementary Medicine, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, Index Medicus for the Eastern Mediterranean Region, International Bibliography of Social Sciences, Literature in the Health Sciences in Latin America and the Caribbean, Medline, Proquest Theses/Dissertations, PsycInfo and Web of Science. The search will include an extensive list of keywords to capture multiple dimensions of confidence and hesitancy vis-à-vis vaccines among migrants. Findings will be reported through summary narratives, tables, flowcharts and evidence maps. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review is exempted from ethical approval and will be published in a peer-reviewed open-access journal to ensure wide dissemination.

International migration of health labour: monitoring the two-way flow of physicians in South Africa.

INTRODUCTION: Although health labour migration is a global phenomenon, studies have neglected the flow of health workers into low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). In compliance with the data-monitoring recommendation of the WHO Global Code of Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel (Code), we estimated post-Code physician net migration (NM) in South Africa (SA), and SA's net loss of physicians to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries from 2010 to 2014. METHODS: We sourced data from the National Reporting Instrument reports, the OECD and the General Medical Council. Using the numbers of foreign nationals and international medical graduates (IMGs) registered in SA, and SA medical graduates registered in OECD countries (South African-trained international medical graduates (SA-IMGs)) as respective proxies for immigration and emigration, we estimated 'NM' as the difference between immigrant physicians and emigrant physicians and 'net loss' as the difference between OECD-trained IMGs and OECD-based SA-IMGs. RESULTS: In 2010, SA hosted 8443 immigrant physicians, while OECD countries hosted 14 933 SA-IMGs, yielding a NM of -6490 physicians and a NM rate of -18% in SA. By 2014, SA-based immigrant physicians had increased by 4%, while SA-IMGs had decreased by -15%, halving the NM rate to -9%. SA-to-OECD estimated net loss of physicians dropped from -12 739 physicians in 2010 to -10 563 in 2014. IMGs represented 46% of 2010-2014 new registrations in SA, with the UK, Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo serving as leading sources. Registrants from conflict-scarred Libya increased >100-fold. More than 3400 SA-IMGs exited OECD-based workforces. CONCLUSION: NM is a better measure of the brain drain than simply the emigration fraction. Strengthened health personnel data management and reporting through implementation of the Code-related system of National Health Workforce Accounts will further increase our understanding of health worker mobility in LMICs, with policymakers empowered to make more informed policies to address shortage.