Disproportionate infection, hospitalisation and death from COVID-19 in ethnic minority groups and Indigenous Peoples: an application of the Priority Public Health Conditions analytical framework.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in disproportionate consequences for ethnic minority groups and Indigenous Peoples. We present an application of the Priority Public Health Conditions (PPHC) framework from the World Health Organisation (WHO), to explicitly address COVID-19 and other respiratory viruses of pandemic potential. This application is supported by evidence that ethnic minority groups were more likely to be infected, implying differential exposure (PPHC level two), be more vulnerable to severe disease once infected (PPHC level three) and have poorer health outcomes following infection (PPHC level four). These inequities are driven by various interconnected dimensions of racism, that compounds with socioeconomic context and position (PPHC level one). We show that, for respiratory viruses, it is important to stratify levels of the PPHC framework by infection status and by societal, community, and individual factors to develop optimal interventions to reduce inequity from COVID-19 and future infectious diseases outbreaks.

The immune status of migrant populations in Europe and implications for vaccine-preventable disease control: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring vaccination coverage reaches established herd immunity thresholds (HIT) is the cornerstone of any vaccination programme. Diverse migrant populations in European countries have been associated with cases of vaccine-preventable diseases (VPD) and outbreaks, yet it is not clear to what extent they are an under-immunised group. METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesise peer-reviewed published primary research reporting data on the immune status of migrants in EU/EEA countries, the UK and Switzerland, calculating their pooled immunity coverage for measles, mumps, rubella, and diphtheria using random-effects models. We searched on Web of Science, Embase, Global Health and MEDLINE (January 1st 2000 to June 10th 2022), with no language restrictions. The protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018103666). FINDINGS: Of 1103 abstracts screened, 62 met eligibility criteria, of which 39 were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis included 75 089 migrants, predominantly from outside Europe. Pooled immunity coverage among migrant populations was well below the recommended HIT for diphtheria (n = 7, 57.4% [95% CI: 43.1-71.7%] I2 = 99% vs HIT 83-86%), measles (n = 21, 83.7% [95% CI: 79.2-88.2] I2 = 99% vs HIT 93-95%), and mumps (n = 8, 67.1% [95% CI: 50.6-83.6] I2 = 99% vs HIT 88-93%), and midway for rubella (n = 29, 85.6% [95% CI: 83.1-88.1%] I2 = 99% vs HIT 83-94%), with high heterogeneity across studies. INTERPRETATION: Migrants in Europe are an under-immunised group for a range of important VPDs, with this study reinforcing the importance of engaging children, adolescents, and adults in 'catch-up' vaccination initiatives on arrival for vaccines, doses, and boosters they may have missed in their home countries. Co-designing strategies to strengthen catch-up vaccination across the life-course in under-immunised groups is an important next step if we are to meet European and global targets for VPD elimination and control and ensure vaccine equity.

A qualitative study exploring healthcare workers' lived experiences of the impacts of COVID-19 policies and guidelines on maternal and reproductive healthcare services in the United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, pregnant women were regarded as vulnerable to poor health outcomes if infected with the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) virus. To protect the United Kingdom's (UK) National Health Service (NHS) and pregnant patients, strict infection control policies and regulations were implemented. This study aimed to understand the impact of the COVID-19 policies and guidelines on maternal and reproductive health services during the pandemic from the experiences of healthcare workers (HCWs) caring for these patients. METHODS: This qualitative study involved HCWs from the United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH) project. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted online or by telephone with 44 diverse HCWs. Transcripts were thematically analyzed following Braun and Clarke's principles of qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Three key themes were identified during analysis. First, infection control policies impacted appointment availability, resulting in many cancellations and delays to treatment. Telemedicine was also used extensively to reduce risks from face-to-face consultations, disadvantaging patients from minoritized ethnicities. Secondly, staff shortages and redeployments reduced availability of consultations, appointments, and sonography scans. Finally, staff and patients reported challenges accessing timely, reliable and accurate information and guidance. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 demonstrated how a global health crisis can impact maternal and reproductive health services, leading to reduced service quality and surgical delays due to staff redeployment policies. Our findings underscore the implications of policy and future health crises preparedness. This includes tailored infection control policies, addressing elective surgery backlogs early and improved dissemination of relevant vaccine information.

Migrants' living conditions, perceived health needs and implications for the use of antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance in the United Kingdom: A qualitative study.

Background and Aims: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is among the top public health concerns around the globe. Migrants, especially forced migrants, could be at higher risk of acquiring and transmitting AMR during their journeys or in host countries. There is limited understanding regarding migrants' living conditions and the wider factors contributing to their risk of acquiring infections, and behaviors around antimicrobial use, and AMR development. In this study, we aimed to explore transit experiences, living conditions, and antibiotic use of migrants living in the United Kingdom. Methods: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with 27 participants and identified five themes regarding migrants' journey and their living conditions during transit and after arriving in the United Kingdom, their access to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), and their use of antibiotics. Results: Migrants, particularly forced migrants, experienced unfavorable living conditions, poor access to WASH, and challenges in accessing healthcare, which further contributed to health conditions like urinary and skin problems. Isolation and difficulty in accessing healthcare played significant roles in migrants' perceived need for storing and using antibiotics as a safety net. Conclusion: The findings highlight the need for coordinated and multilevel interventions to address these challenges and contribute toward tackling AMR and improving the health of this population group.

Pathways to ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 health outcomes in the United Kingdom: A systematic map.

BACKGROUND: Marked ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 infection and its consequences have been documented. The aim of this paper is to identify the range and nature of evidence on potential pathways which lead to ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 related health outcomes in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: We searched six bibliographic and five grey literature databases from 1st December 2019 to 23rd February 2022 for research on pathways to ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 health outcomes in the UK. Meta-data were extracted and coded, using a framework informed by a logic model. Open Science Framework Registration: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/HZRB7. RESULTS: The search returned 10,728 records after excluding duplicates, with 123 included (83% peer-reviewed). Mortality was the most common outcome investigated (N = 79), followed by infection (N = 52). The majority of studies were quantitative (N = 93, 75%), with four qualitative studies (3%), seven academic narrative reviews (6%), nine third sector reports (7%) and five government reports (4%), and four systematic reviews or meta-analyses (3%). There were 78 studies which examined comorbidities as a pathway to mortality, infection, and severe disease. Socioeconomic inequalities (N = 67) were also commonly investigated, with considerable research into neighbourhood infrastructure (N = 38) and occupational risk (N = 28). Few studies examined barriers to healthcare (N = 6) and consequences of infection control measures (N = 10). Only 11% of eligible studies theorised racism to be a driver of inequalities and 10% (typically government/third sector reports and qualitative studies) explored this as a pathway. CONCLUSION: This systematic map identified knowledge clusters that may be amenable to subsequent systematic reviews, and critical gaps in the evidence-base requiring additional primary research. Most studies do not incorporate or conceptualise racism as the fundamental cause of ethnic inequalities and therefore the contribution to literature and policy is limited.

Ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 infection, hospitalisation, intensive care admission, and death: a global systematic review and meta-analysis of over 200 million study participants.

Background: COVID-19 has exacerbated existing ethnic inequalities in health. Little is known about whether inequalities in severe disease and deaths, observed globally among minoritised ethnic groups, relates to greater infection risk, poorer prognosis, or both. We analysed global data on COVID-19 clinical outcomes examining inequalities between people from minoritised ethnic groups compared to the ethnic majority group. Methods: Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library) were searched from 1st December 2019 to 3rd October 2022, for studies reporting original clinical data for COVID-19 outcomes disaggregated by ethnicity: infection, hospitalisation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and mortality. We assessed inequalities in incidence and prognosis using random-effects meta-analyses, with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) use to assess certainty of findings. Meta-regressions explored the impact of region and time-frame (vaccine roll-out) on heterogeneity. PROSPERO: CRD42021284981. Findings: 77 studies comprising over 200,000,000 participants were included. Compared with White majority populations, we observed an increased risk of testing positive for infection for people from Black (adjusted Risk Ratio [aRR]:1.78, 95% CI:1.59-1.99, I2 = 99.1), South Asian (aRR:3.00, 95% CI:1.59-5.66, I2 = 99.1), Mixed (aRR:1.64, 95% CI:1.02-1.67, I2 = 93.2) and Other ethnic groups (aRR:1.36, 95% CI:1.01-1.82, I2 = 85.6). Black, Hispanic, and South Asian people were more likely to be seropositive. Among population-based studies, Black and Hispanic ethnic groups and Indigenous peoples had an increased risk of hospitalisation; Black, Hispanic, South Asian, East Asian and Mixed ethnic groups and Indigenous peoples had an increased risk of ICU admission. Mortality risk was increased for Hispanic, Mixed, and Indigenous groups. Smaller differences were seen for prognosis following infection. Following hospitalisation, South Asian, East Asian, Black and Mixed ethnic groups had an increased risk of ICU admission, and mortality risk was greater in Mixed ethnic groups. Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Interpretation: Our study suggests that systematic ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 health outcomes exist, with large differences in exposure risk and some differences in prognosis following hospitalisation. Response and recovery interventions must focus on tackling drivers of ethnic inequalities which increase exposure risk and vulnerabilities to severe disease, including structural racism and racial discrimination. Funding: ESRC:ES/W000849/1.

Hesitancy for receiving regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in UK healthcare workers: a cross-sectional analysis from the UK-REACH study.

BACKGROUND: Regular vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 may be needed to maintain immunity in 'at-risk' populations, which include healthcare workers (HCWs). However, little is known about the proportion of HCWs who might be hesitant about receiving a hypothetical regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or the factors associated with this hesitancy. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of questionnaire data collected as part of UK-REACH, a nationwide, longitudinal cohort study of HCWs. The outcome measure was binary, either a participant indicated they would definitely accept regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination if recommended or they indicated some degree of hesitancy regarding acceptance (probably accept or less likely). We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with hesitancy for receiving regular vaccination. RESULTS: A total of 5454 HCWs were included in the analysed cohort, 23.5% of whom were hesitant about regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Black HCWs were more likely to be hesitant than White HCWs (aOR 2.60, 95%CI 1.80-3.72) as were those who reported a previous episode of COVID-19 (1.33, 1.13-1.57 [vs those who tested negative]). Those who received influenza vaccination in the previous two seasons were over five times less likely to report hesitancy for regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination than those not vaccinated against influenza in either season (0.18, 0.14-0.21). HCWs who trusted official sources of vaccine information (such as NHS or government adverts or websites) were less likely to report hesitancy for a regular vaccination programme. Those who had been exposed to information advocating against vaccination from friends and family were more likely to be hesitant. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, nearly a quarter of UK HCWs were hesitant about receiving a regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. We have identified key factors associated with hesitancy for regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, which can be used to identify groups of HCWs at the highest risk of vaccine hesitancy and tailor interventions accordingly. Family and friends of HCWs may influence decisions about regular vaccination. This implies that working with HCWs and their social networks to allay concerns about SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could improve uptake in a regular vaccination programme. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN11811602.

"The vaccination is positive; I don't think it's the panacea": A qualitative study on COVID-19 vaccine attitudes among ethnically diverse healthcare workers in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Globally, healthcare workers (HCWs) were prioritised for receiving vaccinations against the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Previous research has shown disparities in COVID-19 vaccination uptake among HCWs based on ethnicity, job role, sex, age, and deprivation. However, vaccine attitudes underpinning these variations and factors influencing these attitudes are yet to be fully explored. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study with 164 HCWs from different ethnicities, sexes, job roles, migration statuses, and regions in the United Kingdom (UK). Interviews and focus groups were conducted online or telephonically, and recorded with participants' permission. Recordings were transcribed and a two-pronged analytical approach was adopted: content analysis for categorising vaccine attitudes and thematic analysis for identifying factors influencing vaccine attitudes. FINDINGS: We identified four different COVID-19 vaccine attitudes among HCWs: Active Acceptance, Passive Acceptance, Passive Decline, and Active Decline. Content analysis of the transcripts showed that HCWs from ethnic minority communities and female HCWs were more likely to either decline (actively/passively) or passively accept vaccination-reflecting hesitancy. Factors influencing these attitudes included: trust; risk perception; social influences; access and equity; considerations about the future. INTERPRETATION: Our data show that attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccine are diverse, and elements of hesitancy may persist even after uptake. This has implications for the sustainability of the COVID-19 vaccine programme, particularly as new components (for example boosters) are being offered. We also found that vaccine attitudes differed by ethnicity, sex and job role, which calls for an intersectional and dynamic approach for improving vaccine uptake among HCWs. Trust, risk perception, social influences, access and equity and future considerations all influence vaccine attitudes and have a bearing on HCWs' decision about accepting or declining the COVID-19 vaccine. Based on our findings, we recommend building trust, addressing structural inequities and, designing inclusive and accessible information to address hesitancy.

Factors influencing the mental health of an ethnically diverse healthcare workforce during COVID-19: a qualitative study in the United Kingdom.

Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) have been reported to be experiencing a deterioration in their mental health due to COVID-19. In addition, ethnic minority populations in the United Kingdom are disproportionately affected by COVID-19. It is imperative that HCWs are appropriately supported and protected from mental harm during the pandemic. Our research aims to add to the evidence base by providing greater insight into the lived experience of HCWs from diverse ethnic backgrounds during the pandemic that had an impact on their mental health. Methods: We undertook a qualitative work package as part of the United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes among Healthcare workers (UK-REACH). As part of the qualitative research, we carried out 16 focus groups with a total of 61 HCWs between December 2020 and July 2021. The aim of the study was to explore topics such as their experiences, fears and concerns, while working during the pandemic. The purposive sample included ancillary healthcare workers, doctors, nurses, midwives and allied health professionals from diverse ethnic backgrounds to ensure inclusion of underrepresented and disproportionately impacted individuals. We conducted discussions using Microsoft Teams. Recordings were transcribed and thematically analysed. Results: Several factors were identified which impacted on the mental health of HCWs during this period including anxiety (due to inconsistent protocols and policy); fear (of infection); trauma (due to increased exposure to severe illness and death); guilt (of potentially infecting loved ones); and stress (due to longer working hours and increased workload). Conclusion: COVID-19 has affected the mental health of HCWs. We identified a number of factors which may be contributing to a deterioration in mental health for participants from diverse ethnic backgrounds. Healthcare organisations should consider developing strategies to counter the negative impact of these factors, including recommendations made by HCWs themselves.

Antecedentes: Se ha informado que los trabajadores de la salud (HCW, por sus siglas en inglés) están experimentando un deterioro en su salud mental debido al COVID-19. Además, las poblaciones de minorías étnicas en el Reino Unido se ven afectadas de manera desproporcionada por el COVID-19. Es imperativo que los trabajadores de la salud reciban el apoyo adecuado y estén protegidos de afecciones mentales durante la pandemia. Nuestra investigación tiene como objetivo aumentar la base de evidencia al proporcionar una mayor comprensión de la experiencia vivida por los trabajadores de la salud de diversos orígenes étnicos durante la pandemia que tuvieron un impacto en su salud mental.Metodología: Llevamos a cabo un paquete de trabajo cualitativo como parte del estudio de investigación del Reino Unido sobre los resultados de la etnicidad y el COVID-19 entre los trabajadores de la salud (UK-REACH). Como parte de la investigación cualitativa, llevamos a cabo 16 grupos focales con un total de 61 Trabajadores de la Salud entre diciembre de 2020 y julio de 2021. El objetivo del estudio fue explorar temas como sus experiencias, miedos y preocupaciones, mientras trabajaban durante la pandemia. La muestra intencional incluyó trabajadores auxiliares de la salud, médicos, enfermeras, matronas y profesionales de la salud asociados de diversos orígenes étnicos para garantizar la inclusión de personas subrepresentadas y desproporcionadamente afectadas. Llevamos a cabo debates utilizando Microsoft Teams. Las grabaciones fueron transcritas y analizadas temáticamente.Resultados: Se identificaron varios factores que afectaron la salud mental de los trabajadores de la salud durante este período, incluida la ansiedad (debido a protocolos y políticas inconsistentes); miedo (de infección); trauma (debido a una mayor exposición a enfermedades graves y muerte); culpa (de infectar potencialmente a los seres queridos); y estrés (debido a jornadas laborales más largas y mayor carga de trabajo).Conclusión: COVID-19 ha afectado la salud mental de los trabajadores de la salud. Identificamos una serie de factores que pueden estar contribuyendo al deterioro de la salud mental de los participantes de diversos orígenes étnicos. Las organizaciones de atención médica deben considerar el desarrollo de estrategias para contrarrestar el impacto negativo de estos factores, incluidas las recomendaciones hechas por los propios trabajadores de la salud.

Prevention and treatment of infectious diseases in migrants in Europe in the era of universal health coverage.

Some subpopulations of migrants to Europe are generally healthier than the population of the country of settlement, but are at increased risk of key infectious diseases, including tuberculosis, HIV, and viral hepatitis, as well as under- immunisation. Infection screening programmes across Europe work in disease silos with a focus on individual diseases at the time of arrival. We argue that European health-care practitioners and policy makers would benefit from developing a framework of universal health care for migrants, which proactively offers early testing and vaccinations by delivering multi-disease testing and catch-up vaccination programmes integrated within existing health systems. Such interventions should be codeveloped with migrant populations to overcome barriers faced in accessing services. Aligning policies with the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control guidance for health care for migrants, community-based preventive health-care programmes should be delivered as part of universal health care. However, effective implementation needs appropriate funding, and to be underpinned by high-quality evidence.

Healthcare Workers From Diverse Ethnicities and Their Perceptions of Risk and Experiences of Risk Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Qualitative Insights From the United Kingdom-REACH Study.

Introduction: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at higher risk of being infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Previous studies have examined factors relating to infection amongst HCWs, including those from ethnic minority groups, but there is limited data regarding the lived experiences of HCWs in relation to self-protection and how they deal with SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention. In this study, we presented data from an ethnically diverse sample of HCWs in the United Kingdom (UK) to understand their perceptions of risks and experiences with risk management whilst working throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We undertook a qualitative study as part of the United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes among Healthcare workers (United Kingdom-REACH) conducting semi-structured interviews and focus groups which were recorded with participants' permission. Recordings were transcribed and thematically analyzed. Findings: A total of 84 participants were included in the analysis. Five broad themes emerged. First, ethnic minority HCWs spoke about specific risks and vulnerabilities they faced in relation to their ethnicity. Second, participants' experience of risk assessments at work varied; some expressed satisfaction while many critiqued it as a "tick-box" exercise. Third, most participants shared about risks related to shortages, ambiguity in guidance, and inequitable distribution of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), particularly during the start of the pandemic. Fourth, participants reported risks resulting from understaffing and inappropriate redeployment. Finally, HCWs shared the risk mitigation strategies which they had personally employed to protect themselves, their families, and the public. Conclusion: Healthcare workers identified several areas where they felt at risk and/or had negative experiences of risk management during the pandemic. Our findings indicate that organizational shortcomings may have exposed some HCWs to greater risks of infection compared with others, thereby increasing their emotional and mental burden. Ethnic minority HCWs in particular experienced risks stemming from what they perceived to be institutional and structural racism, thus leading to a loss of trust in employers. These findings have significance in understanding staff safety, wellbeing, and workforce retention in multiethnic staff groups and also highlight the need for more robust, inclusive, and equitable approaches to protect HCWs going forward.

Access to personal protective equipment in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom: results from a nationwide cohort study (UK-REACH).

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Effective use of personal protective equipment (PPE) reduces this risk. We sought to determine the prevalence and predictors of self-reported access to appropriate PPE (aPPE) for HCWs in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted cross sectional analyses using data from a nationwide questionnaire-based cohort study administered between December 2020-February 2021. The outcome was a binary measure of self-reported aPPE (access all of the time vs access most of the time or less frequently) at two timepoints: the first national lockdown in the UK in March 2020 (primary analysis) and at the time of questionnaire response (secondary analysis). RESULTS: Ten thousand five hundred eight HCWs were included in the primary analysis, and 12,252 in the secondary analysis. 35.2% of HCWs reported aPPE at all times in the primary analysis; 83.9% reported aPPE at all times in the secondary analysis. In the primary analysis, after adjustment (for age, sex, ethnicity, migration status, occupation, aerosol generating procedure exposure, work sector and region, working hours, night shift frequency and trust in employing organisation), older HCWs and those working in Intensive Care Units were more likely to report aPPE at all times. Asian HCWs (aOR:0.77, 95%CI 0.67-0.89 [vs White]), those in allied health professional and dental roles (vs those in medical roles), and those who saw a higher number of COVID-19 patients compared to those who saw none (≥ 21 patients/week 0.74, 0.61-0.90) were less likely to report aPPE at all times. Those who trusted their employing organisation to deal with concerns about unsafe clinical practice, compared to those who did not, were twice as likely to report aPPE at all times. Significant predictors were largely unchanged in the secondary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Only a third of HCWs in the UK reported aPPE at all times during the first lockdown and that aPPE had improved later in the pandemic. We also identified key determinants of aPPE during the first UK lockdown, which have mostly persisted since lockdown was eased. These findings have important implications for the safe delivery of healthcare during the pandemic.