Interventions to improve access to primary care for inclusion health groups in England: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Everyone in England has the right to primary care without financial charges. Nevertheless, evidence shows that barriers remain for inclusion health populations such as vulnerable migrants, people experiencing homelessness, Gypsy, Roma, and Traveller (GRT) communities, and people who sell sex. There is little evidence for what works to improve access. This study was a scoping review of interventions to improve access to mainstream primary care for inclusion health groups in England. METHODS: In this scoping review, we searched databases (Embase, Medline, APA PsychInfo, the Cochrane Collaboration Library, Web of Science and CINAHL) and grey literature sources, including the National Health Service and National Institute for Clinical Excellence, for articles published in English between Jan 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2020, with no limit on study design. Data were extracted according to inclusion criteria, including interventions taking place in England and targeting people with insecure immigration status, people who sell sex, people experiencing homelessness, and GRT communities. Results were presented in a narrative synthesis. FINDINGS: 39 studies describing one or more interventions were included: four peer-reviewed articles (one randomised trial, two quality improvement projects, and one mixed-methods study protocol) and 25 grey literature items (38 interventions in total). Interventions mostly targeted people with insecure immigration status (17/38, 45%), and a majority (12/38, 32%) took place in London. The most common types of intervention were training, education, and resources (such as leaflets or websites) for patients or staff (25/38, 66%), and most interventions targeted GP registration processes (28/38, 74%). Interventions commonly involved voluntary and community sector organisations (16/38, 42%). Most interventions were not evaluated to understand their effectiveness (23/38, 61%). Sources with evaluations identified staff training, direct patient advocacy, and involvement of people with lived experience as effective elements. INTERPRETATION: Interventions to improve access to primary care for inclusion health groups in England were heterogeneous, commonly undertaken at community level, and developed to serve local inclusion health groups. Considerations for policymakers and practitioners include groups and geographical areas less commonly included in interventions, the elements of positive practice identified in evaluations, and the need for evaluation of future interventions. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR 202050).

Perspectives on registration to primary care from inclusion health groups in England: a mixed-method study.

BACKGROUND: Although everyone living in the UK is entitled to access free primary care within the National Health Service (NHS), evidence shows that people in need of health care are wrongly being refused access. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of individuals from inclusion health groups on primary care registration and accessibility. METHODS: This was a mixed-methods study. From Oct 5, 2022, to Feb 20, 2023, we surveyed 49 people (36 [73%] men; 12 [24%] women) and interviewed 25 other (14 [56%] men; 11 [44%] women) who were service users of the University College London Hospital Find & Treat mobile service. This service included people with lived experience of homelessness, asylum seeking, addiction, selling sex, and irregular immigration. We recruited these participants through hostels for people with ongoing addiction and complex needs, initial asylum accommodation centres, and day shelters. Our research team included two peer researchers. FINDINGS: Of those surveyed, 25 (51%) perceived their access to primary health-care services as good, and 17 (35%) reported obstacles to going to the general practitioner (GP). Participants described multiple barriers to registering for GP surgeries, including a lack of understanding and poor communication with NHS services, a fear of discrimination, and a lack of digital access that prevents information seeking and access to services. Respondents also reported using emergency services instead of primary care because they were more immediately accessible without previous registration. Facilitators to GP registration included one-on-one support and outreach work that helps people navigate into services and know their rights, and the use of specialist GP services, which are perceived as more accepting, especially for people experiencing homelessness. INTERPRETATION: The barriers to registration identified are related to both individual and group level characteristics and produce both similar and divergent needs between different inclusion health groups. The need for additional support during registration was clear, and our work highlights the requirement for interventions to improve access to primary care for underserved groups, as well as coordinated policy action. One-on-one support in particular, either outreach or provided in services where inclusion health groups spend time, appears to be a key facilitator to ensuring comprehensive and fast access to GP services. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR).

Navigating challenges and workarounds: A qualitative study of healthcare and support workers' perceptions on providing care to people seeking sanctuary.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare and support workers play a pivotal role in delivering quality services and support to people seeking sanctuary who have experienced poor physical and mental health linked to previous trauma, relocation and loss of freedoms. However, they often encounter various challenges in their daily work, ranging from communication barriers to resource constraints. This qualitative study seeks to delve into the perspectives of healthcare and support workers' experience of workarounds, employed to overcome barriers to providing care. AIM: This study aims to describe healthcare providers', practitioners' and health and third sector support workers' views on barriers and workarounds to providing care for people seeking sanctuary, to inform policy and practice. DESIGN: A qualitative study was carried out using semi-structured telephone interviews. SETTING: This study focused on primary, secondary, community and specialist National Health Service (NHS) support services for people seeking sanctuary in Wales, United Kingdom (2018). METHOD: We interviewed 32 healthcare providers, practitioners and support workers employed by primary care and third sector organisations. Our approach involved obtaining verbal informed consent before digitally recording and transcribing all interviews. To analyse the data, we used the Four Levels of Change for Improving Quality model as a guiding framework for interpretation. RESULTS: Our study findings reveal that certain respondents expressed challenges in meeting the needs of people seeking sanctuary; notably, their experience of delivering care differed by care settings. Specifically, those involved in providing specialist NHS care believed that there was room for improvement. Mainstream primary, secondary and community health practitioners faced limitations due to resource constraints and lacked tailored information to address the unique circumstances and needs of sanctuary seekers. To address these gaps, workarounds emerged at both individual and local levels (team/departmental and organisational level). These included establishing informal communication channels between providers, fostering cross service collaboration to fill gaps and adapting existing services to enhance accessibility. CONCLUSION: Understanding healthcare providers', practitioners' and support workers' perspectives offers invaluable insights into ways to enhance healthcare delivery to sanctuary seekers. Acknowledging challenges and harnessing innovative workarounds can foster a more effective and compassionate service for this vulnerable population. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The HEAR study actively involved public contributors in the design, delivery and dissemination of the research. Two public contributors (S. M. and G. R.) who had personal experience of seeking asylum served as study co-applicants. They played pivotal roles in shaping the research by participating in its development and securing funding. Alongside other co-applicants, S. M. and G. R. formed the Research Management Group, overseeing study delivery. Their contributions extended to strategic decision-making and specific feedback at critical junctures, including participant recruitment, data collection, analysis and reporting. Additionally, S. M. and G. R. were instrumental in recruiting and supporting a team of peer researchers, enhancing respondent participation among people seeking sanctuary. To facilitate effective public involvement, we provided named contacts for support (A. K. and R. F.), research training, honoraria, reimbursement of expenses and accessible information in line with best practice.

Inequalities in vaccination coverage and differences in follow-up procedures for asylum-seeking children arriving in Wales, UK.

The European Vaccine Action Plan 2015-2020 highlights the importance of reducing inequities and monitoring performance in underserved groups including migrants. However, there are limited data from European countries and policies for catch-up vary by country. Vaccination coverage in accompanied asylum-seeking children aged 5 to 16 years in two dispersal areas of Wales is presented alongside the coverage in the local population. Coverage data for asylum-seeking children were collated locally using asylum seeker nurse records whilst coverage in the local population was calculated using data from the National Community Child Health Database, a repository of data from all local Child Health Systems in Wales. The processes for following up outstanding vaccinations were also collected using a face-to-face questionnaire distributed to lead asylum seeker nurses in each area. As at the date of assessment, 45.6% (67/147) of children dispersed to area one had received all recommended immunisations compared with 62.2% (150/241) dispersed to area two, OR 0.51 (95% CI 0.33-0.79). At both sites the odds of being vaccinated against key vaccine preventable infections were around three times lower if you were an asylum-seeking child, compared with the local population. Similar procedures were in place for new asylum seekers in both dispersal areas. Area one had less resource to follow up missing immunisations, and children did not receive an initial health assessment unlike area two. Verbal history was accepted in area one but not in area two, despite area two having higher vaccine uptake.Conclusion: Asylum-seeking children have low rates of vaccine uptake compared with the general population, although uptake differs depending on dispersal area. Inequalities in vaccination services, such as resource and strategies to improve uptake, need to be considered.What is Known:• The European Vaccine Action Plan 2015-2020 highlights the importance of reducing inequities and monitoring performance in underserved groups including migrants.• Limited data from European countries suggest inequalities in uptake of immunisations in migrants compared with the local population. Policies for catching up immunisations vary by country.What is New:• Despite national policy for vaccination of migrants with missing or incomplete vaccination history in Wales, this work suggests vaccination coverage in asylum-seeking children is not equitable with the local population.• Vaccination coverage in asylum-seeking children dispersed to different areas of Wales also varies, and this may be associated with differences in local catch-up strategies and the ability to follow national policy. Resource and strategies to maintain engagement with health services play an important role in increasing vaccine uptake in underserved groups.

Relevance of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to Adolescent Health Measurement: A Systematic Mapping of the SDG Framework and Global Adolescent Health Indicators.

PURPOSE: To assess the relevance of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework for adolescent health measurement, both in terms of age disaggregation and different health domains captured, and how the adolescent health indicators recommended by the Global Action for Measurement of Adolescent Health (GAMA) can complement the SDG framework. METHODS: We conducted a desk review to systematically map all 248 SDG indicators using the UN metadata repository in three steps: 1) age-related mandates for SDG reporting; 2) linkages between the SDG indicators and priority areas for adolescent health measurement; 3) comparison between the GAMA indicators and the SDG framework. RESULTS: Of the 248 SDG indicators, 35 (14%) targeted an age range overlapping with adolescence (10-19 years) and 33 (13%) called for age disaggregation. Only one indicator (3.7.2 "adolescent birth rate") covered the entire 10-19 age range. Almost half (41%) of the SDG indicators were directly related to adolescent health, but only 33 of those (13% of all SDG indicators) overlapped with the ages 10-19, and 15 (6% of all SDG indicators) explicitly mandated age disaggregation. Among the 47 GAMA indicators, five corresponded to existing SDG indicators, and eight were adolescent-specific age adaptations. Several GAMA indicators shed light on aspects not tracked in the SDG framework, such as obesity, mental health, physical activity, and bullying among 10-19-year-olds. DISCUSSION: Adolescent health cannot be monitored comprehensively with the SDG framework alone. The GAMA indicators complement this framework via age-disaggregated adaptations and by tracking aspects of adolescent health currently absent from the SDGs.

Indicators to Measure Adolescent Health at the Country, Regional, and Global Levels: Results of a Five-Year Selection Process by the Global Action for the Measurement of Adolescent Health.

PURPOSE: To improve adolescent health measurement, the Global Action for the Measurement of Adolescent health (GAMA) Advisory Group was formed in 2018 and published a draft list of 52 indicators across six adolescent health domains in 2022. We describe the process and results of selecting the adolescent health indicators recommended by GAMA (hereafter, "GAMA-recommended indicators"). METHODS: Each indicator in the draft list was assessed using the following inputs: (1) availability of data and stakeholders' perceptions on their relevance, acceptability, and feasibility across selected countries; (2) alignment with current measurement recommendations and practices; and (3) data in global databases. Topic-specific working groups comprised of GAMA experts and representatives of United Nations partner agencies reviewed results and provided preliminary recommendations, which were appraised by all GAMA members and finalized. RESULTS: There are 47 GAMA-recommended indicators (36 core and 11 additional) for adolescent health measurement across six domains: policies, programs, and laws (4 indicators); systems performance and interventions (4); health determinants (7); health behaviors and risks (20); subjective well-being (2); and health outcomes and conditions (10). DISCUSSION: These indicators are the result of a robust and structured five-year process to identify a priority set of indicators with relevance to adolescent health globally. This inclusive and participatory approach incorporated inputs from a broad range of stakeholders, including adolescents and young people themselves. The GAMA-recommended indicators are now ready to be used to measure adolescent health at the country, regional, and global levels.

Exploring a Preliminary Set of Indicators to Measure Adolescent Health: Results From a 12-Country Feasibility Study.

PURPOSE: To explore data availability, perceived relevance, acceptability and feasibility of implementing 52 draft indicators for adolescent health measurement in different countries globally. METHODS: A mixed-methods, sequential explanatory study was conducted in 12 countries. An online spreadsheet was used to assess data availability and a stakeholder survey to assess perceived relevance, acceptability, and feasibility of implementing each draft indicator proposed by the Global Action for Measurement of Adolescent health (GAMA). The assessments were discussed in virtual meetings with all countries and in deep dives with three countries. Findings were synthesized using descriptive statistics and qualitative thematic analysis. RESULTS: Data availability varied across the 52 draft GAMA indicators and across countries. Nine countries reported measuring over half of the indicators. Most indicators were rated relevant by stakeholders, while some were considered less acceptable and feasible. The ten lowest-ranking indicators were related to mental health, sexual health and substance use; the highest-ranking indicators centered on broader adolescent health issues, like use of health services. Indicators with higher data availability and alignment with national priorities were generally considered most relevant, acceptable and feasible. Barriers to measurement included legal, ethical and sensitivity issues, challenges with multi-sectoral coordination and data systems flexibility. DISCUSSION: Most of the draft GAMA indicators were deemed relevant and feasible, but contextual priorities and perceived acceptability influenced their implementation in countries. To increase their use for a more comprehensive understanding of adolescent health, better multi-sectoral coordination and tailored capacity building to accommodate the diverse data systems in countries will be required.

Priority Indicators for Adolescent Health Measurement - Recommendations From the Global Action for Measurement of Adolescent Health (GAMA) Advisory Group.

PURPOSE: This article describes the selection of priority indicators for adolescent (10-19 years) health measurement proposed by the Global Action for Measurement of Adolescent health advisory group and partners, building on previous work identifying 33 core measurement areas and mapping 413 indicators across these areas. METHODS: The indicator selection process considered inputs from a broad range of stakeholders through a structured four-step approach: (1) definition of selection criteria and indicator scoring; (2) development of a draft list of indicators with metadata; (3) collection of public feedback through a survey; and (4) review of the feedback and finalization of the indicator list. As a part of the process, measurement gaps were also identified. RESULTS: Fifty-two priority indicators were identified, including 36 core indicators considered to be most important for measuring the health of all adolescents, one alternative indicator for settings where measuring the core indicator is not feasible, and 15 additional indicators for settings where further detail on a topic would add value. Of these indicators, 17 (33%) measure health behaviors and risks, 16 (31%) health outcomes and conditions, eight (15%) health determinants, five (10%) systems performance and interventions, four (8%) policies, programmes, laws, and two (4%) subjective well-being. DISCUSSION: A consensus list of priority indicators with metadata covering the most important health issues for adolescents was developed with structured inputs from a broad range of stakeholders. This list will now be pilot tested to assess the feasibility of indicator data collection to inform global, regional, national, and sub-national monitoring.

Asylum seekers' and refugees' experiences of accessing health care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Asylum seekers and refugees (ASRs) often experience poor health in host countries. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) requires hosts to ensure these sanctuary seekers have access to basic health care. AIM: To identify barriers and facilitators that affect access to health care by ASRs in Wales. DESIGN & SETTING: Participatory research approach using qualitative focus groups across Wales, which hosts 10 000 refugees. METHOD: Eight focus groups were undertaken with ASRs, support workers, and volunteers (n = 57). RESULTS: Specialist NHS-funded services and grant-aided non-governmental organisations (NGOs) facilitated access to health care, including primary care. Most ASRs understood the role of general practice in providing and coordinating care, but were unaware of out-of-hours services. Reported barriers included: language difficulties, health literacy, unrecognised needs, and the cost of travel to appointments. Participants recognised the importance of mental health, but were disappointed by the state of mental health care. Some feared seeking support for mental health from their GP, and few were aware they had the right to move practice if they were unhappy. Written information about health care was not as accessible to refugees as to asylum seekers (ASs). While some participants read such material before consulting, others struggled to access information when in need. Few participants were aware of health prevention services. Even when they knew about services, such as smoking cessation, these services' difficulty in accommodating ASRs was a barrier. CONCLUSION: The main barriers identified were: availability of interpreters; knowledge about entitlements; and access to specialist services.

A Scoping Review of Adolescent Health Indicators.

PURPOSE: A host of recent initiatives relating to adolescent health have been accompanied by varying indicator recommendations, with little stakeholder coordination. We assessed currently included adolescent health-related indicators for their measurement focus, identified overlap across initiatives, and determined measurement gaps. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to map the existing indicator landscape as depicted by major measurement initiatives. We classified indicators as per 33 previously identified core adolescent health measurement areas across five domains and by age groups. We also identified indicators common across measurement initiatives even if differing in details. RESULTS: We identified 413 indicators across 16 measurement initiatives, with most measuring health outcomes and conditions (162 [39%]) and health behaviors and risks (136 [33%]); followed by policies, programs, and laws (49 [12%]); health determinants (44 [11%]); and system performance and interventions (22 [5%]). Age specification was available for 221 (54%) indicators, with 51 (23%) focusing on the full adolescent age range (10-19 years), 1 (<1%) on 10-14 years, 27 (12%) on 15-19 years, and 142 (64%) on a broader age range including adolescents. No definitional information, such as numerator and denominator, was available for 138 indicators. We identified 236 distinct indicators after accounting for overlap. CONCLUSION: The adolescent health measurement landscape is vast and includes substantial variation among indicators purportedly assessing the same concept. Gaps persist in measuring systems performance and interventions; policies, programs, and laws; and younger adolescents' health. Addressing these gaps and harmonizing measurement is fundamental to improve program implementation and accountability for adolescent health globally.

Priority Areas for Adolescent Health Measurement.

PURPOSE: We establish priority areas for adolescent health measurement and identify current gaps, aiming to focus resources on the most relevant data to improve adolescent health. METHODS: We collected four critical inputs to inform priority setting: perspectives of youth representatives, country priorities, disease burden, and existing measurement efforts. Health areas identified from the inputs were grouped, mapped, and summarized according to their frequency in the inputs. Using a Delphi-like approach, international experts then selected core, expanded, and context-specific priority areas for adolescent health measurement from all health areas identified. RESULTS: Across the four inputs, we identified 99 measurement areas relevant to adolescent health and grouped them under six domains: policies, programs, laws; systems performance and interventions; health determinants; health behaviors and risks; subjective well-being; and health outcomes and conditions. Areas most frequently occurring were mental health and weight status in youth representatives' opinions; sexual and reproductive health and HIV/AIDS in country policies and perspectives; road injury, self-harm, skin diseases, and mental disorders in the disease burden analysis; and adolescent fertility in measurement initiatives. Considering all four inputs, experts selected 33 core, 19 expanded, and 6 context-specific adolescent health measurement areas. CONCLUSION: The adolescent health measurement landscape is vast, covering a large variety of topics. The foci of the measurement initiatives we reviewed do not reflect the most important health areas according to youth representatives' or country-level perspectives, or the adolescent disease burden. Based on these inputs, we propose a set of priority areas to focus national and global adolescent health measurement.