Gypsy, Roma and Traveller access to and engagement with health services: a systematic review.

Background: Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people represent the most disadvantaged minority groups in Europe, having the poorest health outcomes. This systematic review addressed the question of how Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people access healthcare and what are the best ways to enhance their engagement with health services. Methods: Searches were conducted in 21 electronic databases complemented by a focussed Google search. Studies were included if they had sufficient focus on Gypsy, Roma or Traveller populations; reported data pertinent to healthcare service use or engagement and were published in English from 2000 to 2015. Study findings were analyzed thematically and a narrative synthesis reported. Results: Ninety-nine studies from 32 countries were included, covering a range of health services. Nearly one-half of the presented findings related to primary healthcare services. Reported barriers to health service usage related to organisation of health systems, discrimination, culture and language, health literacy, service-user attributes and economic barriers. Promising engagement strategies included specialist roles, outreach services, dedicated services, raising health awareness, handheld records, training for staff and collaborative working. Conclusion: This review provides evidence that Gypsy, Roma and Traveller populations across Europe struggle to exercise their right to healthcare on account of multiple barriers; and related to other determinants of disadvantage such as low literacy levels and experiences of discrimination. Some promising strategies to overcome barriers were reported but the evidence is weak; therefore, rigorous evaluations of interventions to improve access to and engagement with health services for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people are needed.

Community engagement to enhance trust between Gypsy/Travellers, and maternity, early years' and child dental health services: protocol for a multi-method exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: Gypsy/Travellers have poor health and experience discrimination alongside structural and cultural barriers when accessing health services and consequently may mistrust those services. Our study aims to investigate which approaches to community engagement are most likely to be effective at enhancing trust between Gypsy/Travellers and mainstream health services. METHODS: This multi-method 30-month study, commenced in June 2015, and comprises four stages. 1. Three related reviews: a) systematic review of Gypsy/Travellers' access to health services; b) systematic review of reviews of how trust has been conceptualised within healthcare; c) realist synthesis of community engagement approaches to enhance trust and increase Gypsy/Travellers' participation in health services. The reviews will consider any economic literature; 2. Online consultation with health and social care practitioners, and civil society organisations on existing engagement activities, including perceptions of barriers and good practice; 3. Four in-depth case studies of different Gypsy/Traveller communities, focusing on maternity, early years and child dental health services. The case studies include the views of 32-48 mothers of pre-school children, 32-40 healthcare providers and 8-12 informants from third sector organisations. 4. Two stakeholder workshops exploring whether policy options are realistic, sustainable and replicable. Case study data will be analysed thematically informed by the evaluative framework derived from the realist synthesis in stage one. The main outputs will be: a) an evaluative framework of Gypsy/Travellers' engagement with health services; b) recommendations for policy and practice; c) evidence on which to base future implementation strategies including estimation of costs. DISCUSSION: Our novel multi-method study seeks to provide recommendations for policy and practice that have potential to improve uptake and delivery of health services, and to reduce lifetime health inequalities for Gypsy/Travellers. The findings may have wider resonance for other marginalised populations. Strengths and limitations of the study are discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospero registration for literature reviews: CRD42015021955 and CRD42015021950 UKCRN reference: 20036.

Counselling interventions to enable women to initiate and continue breastfeeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Many infants worldwide are not breastfeeding according to WHO recommendations and this impacts on the health of women and children. Increasing breastfeeding is identified as a priority area supported by current policy targets. However, interventions are complex and multi-component and it is unclear which elements of interventions are most effective to increase breastfeeding in which settings. Breastfeeding counselling is often part of complex interventions but evidence is lacking on the specific effect of counselling interventions on breastfeeding practices. The aim of this systematic review is to examine evidence on effectiveness of breastfeeding counselling to inform global guidelines. Methods: A systematic search was conducted of six electronic databases in January 2018. Randomised controlled trials comparing breastfeeding counselling with no breastfeeding counselling or different formulations of counselling were included if they measured breastfeeding practices between birth and 24 months after birth. Results: From the 5180 records identified in searches and a further 11 records found by hand searching, 63 studies were included. Of these, 48 were individually-randomised trials and 15 were cluster-randomised trials. A total of 69 relevant comparisons were reported involving 33,073 women. There was a significant effect of counselling interventions on any breastfeeding at 4 to 6 weeks (Relative risk [RR] 0.85, 95% CI 0.77, 0.94) and 6 months (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87, 0.94). Greater effects were found on exclusive breastfeeding at 4 to 6 weeks (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72, 0.87) and 6 months (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78, 0.91). Counselling delivered at least four times postnatally is more effective than counselling delivered antenatally only and/or fewer than four times. Evidence was mostly of low quality due to high or unclear risk of bias of the included trials and high heterogeneity. Conclusions: Breastfeeding counselling is an effective public health intervention to increase rates of any and exclusive breastfeeding. Breastfeeding counselling should be provided face-to-face, and in addition, may be provided by telephone, both antenatally and postnatally, to all pregnant women and mothers with young children. To inform scale-up globally there is a need to further understand the elements of breastfeeding interventions such as counselling and their effectiveness in different contexts and circumstances. Study registration: This systematic review was registered in Prospero (CRD42018086494).

Education and training of healthcare staff in the knowledge, attitudes and skills needed to work effectively with breastfeeding women: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence suggests that women need effective support to breastfeed, but many healthcare staff lack the necessary knowledge, attitudes and skills. There is therefore a need for breastfeeding education and training for healthcare staff. The primary aim of this review is to determine whether education and training programs for healthcare staff have an effect on their knowledge and attitudes about supporting breastfeeding women. The secondary aim of this review was to identify whether any differences in type of training or discipline of staff mattered. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was conducted using the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's trial register. Randomised controlled trials comparing breastfeeding education and training for healthcare staff with no or usual training and education were included if they measured the impact on staff knowledge, attitudes or compliance with the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI). RESULTS: From the 1192 reports identified, four distinct studies were included. Three studies were two-arm cluster-randomised trials and one was a two-arm individual randomised trial. Of these, three contributed quantitative data from a total of 250 participants. Due to heterogeneity of outcome measures meta-analysis was not possible. Knowledge was included as an outcome in two studies and demonstrated small but significant positive effects. Attitudes towards breastfeeding was included as an outcome in two studies, however, results were inconsistent both in terms of how they were measured and the intervention effects. One study reported a small but significant positive effect on BFHI compliance. Study quality was generally deemed low with the majority of domains being judged as high or unclear risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified a lack of good evidence on breastfeeding education and training for healthcare staff. There is therefore a critical need for research to address breastfeeding education and training needs of multidisciplinary healthcare staff in different contexts through large, well-conducted RCTs.