Understanding the views of adult migrants around catch-up vaccination for missed routine immunisations to define strategies to improve coverage: A UK in-depth interview study.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization's (WHO) Immunization Agenda 2030 emphasises ensuring equitable access to vaccination across the life course. This includes placing an emphasis on migrant populations who may have missed key childhood vaccines, doses, and boosters due to disrupted healthcare systems and the migration process, or differing vaccination schedules in home countries. Guidelines exist in the UK for offering catch-up vaccinations to adolscent and adult migrants with incomplete or uncertain vaccination status (including MMR, Td-IPV, MenACWY, HPV), but emerging evidence suggests awareness and implementation in primary care is poor. It is unclear whether patient-level barriers to uptake of catch-up vaccinations also exist. We explored experiences and views around catch-up vaccination among adult migrants from a range of backgrounds, to define strategies for improving catch-up vaccination policy and practice. METHODS: In-depth semi-structured interviews were carried out in two phases with adult migrant populations (refugees, asylum seekers, undocumented migrants, those with no recourse to public funds) on views and experiences around vaccination, involving a team of peer researchers from specific migrant communities trained through the study. In Phase 1, we conducted remote interviews with migrants resident in the UK for < 10 years, from diverse backgrounds. In Phase 2, we engaged specifically Congolese and Angolan migrants as part of a community-based participatory study. Topic guides were developed iteratively and piloted. Participants were recruited using purposive, opportunistic and snowball sampling methods. Interviews were conducted in English (interpreters offered), Lingala or French and were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using a thematic framework approach in NVivo 12. RESULTS: 71 participants (39 in Phase 1, 32 in Phase 2) were interviewed (Mean age 43.6 [SD:12.4] years, 69% female, mean 9.5 [SD:7] years in the UK). Aside from COVID-19 vaccines, most participants reported never having been offered vaccinations or asked about their vaccination history since arriving in the UK as adults. Few participants mentioned being offered specific catch-up vaccines (e.g. MMR/Td-IPV) when attending a healthcare facility on arrival in the UK. Vaccines such as flu vaccines, pregnancy-related or pre-travel vaccination were more commonly mentioned. In general, participants were not aware of adult catch-up vaccination but regarded it positively when it was explained. A few participants expressed concerns about side-effects, risks/inconveniences associated with access (e.g. links to immigration authorities, travel costs), preference for natural remedies, and hesitancy to engage in further vaccination campaigns due to the intensity of COVID-19 vaccination campaigns. Trust was a major factor in vaccination decisions, with distinctions noted within and between groups; some held a healthcare professional's recommendation in high regard, while others were less trusting towards the healthcare system because of negative experiences of the NHS and past experiences of discrimination, injustice and marginalisation by wider authorities. CONCLUSIONS: The major barrier to adult catch-up vaccination for missed routine immunisations and doses in migrant communities in the UK is the limited opportunities, recommendations or tailored vaccination information presented to migrants by health services. This could be improved with financial incentives for provision of catch-up vaccination in UK primary care, alongside training of healthcare professionals to support catch-up immunisation and raise awareness of existing guidelines. It will also be essential to address root causes of mistrust around vaccination, where it exists among migrants, by working closely with communities to understand their needs and meaningfully involving migrant populations in co-producing tailored information campaigns and culturally relevant interventions to improve coverage.

"As a patient I do not belong to the clinic, I belong to the community." Co-developing a multi-level, person-centred tuberculosis stigma intervention in Cape Town, South Africa.

Background: Anticipated, internal, and enacted stigma are major barriers to TB care engagement, and directly impact patient well-being. Unfortunately, targeted stigma interventions are lacking. We aimed to co-develop a person-centred stigma intervention with TB-affected community members and health workers in South Africa. Methods: Using a community-based participatory research approach, we conducted ten group discussions with people diagnosed with TB (past or present), caregivers, and health workers (total n=87) in Khayelitsha, Cape Town. Group discussions were facilitated by TB survivors. Discussion guides explored experiences and drivers of stigma and used human-centred design principles to co-develop solutions. Recordings were transcribed, coded, thematically analysed and then further interpreted using the socio-ecological model. Results: Intervention components across socio-ecological levels shared common behaviour change strategies, namely education, empowerment, engagement, and innovation. At the individual level, participants recommended counselling to improve TB knowledge and provide ongoing support. TB survivors can guide messaging to nurture stigma resilience by highlighting that TB can affect anyone and is curable, and provide lived experiences of TB to decrease internal stigma. At the interpersonal level, support clubs and family-centred counselling were suggested to dispel TB-related myths and foster support. At the institutional level, health worker stigma reduction training informed by TB survivor perspectives was recommended. Consideration of how integration of TB/HIV care services may exacerbate TB/HIV intersectional stigma and ideas for restructured service delivery models were suggested to decrease anticipated and enacted stigma. At the community level, participants recommended awareness-raising events led by TB survivors, including TB information in school curricula. At the policy level, solutions focused on reducing the visibility generated by a TB diagnosis and resultant stigma in health facilities and shifting tasks to community health workers. Conclusions: Decreasing TB stigma requires a multi-level approach. Co-developing a person-centred intervention with affected communities is feasible and generates stigma intervention components that are directed and implementable. Such community-informed intervention components should be prioritised by TB programs, including integrated TB/HIV care services.

Multi-infection screening for migrant patients in UK primary care: Challenges and opportunities.

Background: Migrants in Europe face a disproportionate burden of undiagnosed infection, including tuberculosis, blood-borne viruses, and parasitic infections and many belong to an under-immunised group. The European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC) has called for innovative strategies to deliver integrated multi-disease screening to migrants within primary care, yet this is poorly implemented in the UK. We did an in-depth qualitative study to understand current practice, barriers and solutions to infectious disease screening in primary care, and to seek feedback on a collaboratively developed digitalised integrated clinical decision-making tool called Health Catch UP!, which supports multi-infection screening for migrant patients. Methods: Two-phase qualitative study of UK primary healthcare professionals, in-depth semi-structured telephone-interviews were conducted. In Phase A, we conducted interviews with clinical staff (general practitioners (GPs), nurses, health-care-assistants (HCAs)); these informed data collection and analysis for phase B (administrative staff). Data were analysed iteratively, using thematic analysis. Results: In phase A, 48 clinicians were recruited (25 GPs, 15 nurses, seven HCAs, one pharmacist) and 16 administrative staff (11 Practice-Managers, five receptionists) in phase B. Respondents were positive about primary care's ability to effectively deliver infectious disease screening. However, we found current infectious disease screening lacks a standardised approach and many practices have no system for screening meaning migrant patients are not always receiving evidence-based care (i.e., NICE/ECDC/UKHSA screening guidelines). Barriers to screening were reported at patient, staff, and system-levels. Respondents reported poor implementation of existing screening initiatives (e.g., regional latent TB screening) citing overly complex pathways that required extensive administrative/clinical time and lacked financial/expert support. Solutions included patient/staff infectious disease champions, targeted training and specialist support, simplified care pathways for screening and management of positive results, and financial incentivisation. Participants responded positively to Health Catch-UP!, stating it would systematically integrate data and support clinical decision-making, increase knowledge, reduce missed screening opportunities, and normalisation of primary care-based infectious disease screening for migrants. Conclusions: Our results suggest that implementation of infectious disease screening in migrant populations is not comprehensively done in UK primary care. Primary health care professionals support the concept of innovative digital tools like Health Catch-UP! and that they could significantly improve disease detection and effective implementation of screening guidance but that they require robust testing and resourcing.

"This is an illness. No one is supposed to be treated badly": Community-based stigma assessments in South Africa to inform TB stigma intervention design.

Background: Though TB-related stigma is a recognized barrier to care, interventions are lacking and gaps remain in understanding the drivers and experiences of TB-related stigma. We undertook community-based mixed methods stigma assessments to inform stigma intervention design. Methods: We adapted the Stop TB Partnership stigma assessment tool, and trained three peer research associates (PRAs; two TB survivors, one community health worker) to conduct surveys with people with TB (PWTB, n=93) and caregivers of children with TB (n=24) at peri-urban and rural clinic sites in Khayelitsha, Western Cape, and Hammanskraal, Gauteng Province, South Africa. We descriptively analyzed responses for each stigma experience (anticipated, internal, and enacted), calculated stigma scores, and undertook generalized linear regression analysis. We further conducted 25 in-depth interviews with PWTB (n=22) and caregivers TB (n=3). Using inductive thematic analysis, we performed open coding to identify emergent themes, and selective coding to identify relevant quotes. Themes were organised using the CARD (Constraints, Actions, Risks and Desires) framework. Results: Surveys revealed at least one-third of PWTB and one-quarter of caregivers report experiences of anticipated, internal, and/or enacted stigma, which affected engagement throughout the care cascade. Participants in rural locations (compared to peri-urban) reported higher anticipated, internal, and enacted stigma (ß-coefficient 0.72, 0.71, and 0.74). Interview participants described how stigma experiences, including HIV intersectional stigma, act individually and in concert as key constraints to impede care, and underpins failure to disclose a TB diagnosis, isolation, and exclusion. Stigma resilience arose through understanding that TB can affect anyone and should not diminish self-worth. Risks of stigma, driven by fears related to disease severity and infectiousness, led to care disengagement and impaired psychological wellbeing. Participants desired counselling, identifying a specific role for TB survivors as peer counsellors, and community education. Conclusions: Stigma is highly prevalent and negatively impacts TB care and the well-being of PWTB, warranting its assessment as a primary outcome indicator rather than intermediary contributor to poor cascade outcomes. Multicomponent stigma interventions are needed, including counselling for PWTB and education for health workers and communities. Such interventions must incorporate contextual differences based on gender or setting, and use survivor-guided messaging to foster stigma resilience.

Use of social media platforms by migrant and ethnic minority populations during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Migrants and ethnic minority groups have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 and have lower levels of vaccine uptake in some contexts. We aimed to determine the extent and nature of social media use in migrant and ethnic minority communities for COVID-19 information, and implications for preventative health measures including vaccination intent and uptake. DESIGN: A systematic review of published and grey literature following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched databases including Embase, Web of Science, PubMed NIH, CINAHL, facilitated through the WHO Global Research on COVID-19 database from 31 December 2019 to 9 June 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Research reporting the use of social media by migrants and/or ethnic minority groups in relation to COVID-19. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted data on key outcomes, study design, country, population under study and sample size. RESULTS: 1849 unique records were screened, and 21 data sources were included, including populations in the UK, USA, China, Jordan, Qatar and Turkey. We found evidence of consistent use of a range of social media platforms for COVID-19 information in some migrant and ethnic minority populations (including WeChat, Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube), which may stem from difficulty in accessing COVID-19 information in their native languages or from trusted sources. Some evidence suggested circulating misinformation and social media use may be associated with lower participation in preventative health measures, including vaccine intent and uptake, findings which are likely relevant to multiple population groups. CONCLUSIONS: Social media platforms are an important source of information about COVID-19 for some migrant and ethnic minority populations. Urgent actions and further research are now needed to better understand effective approaches to tackling circulating misinformation, and to seize on opportunities to better use social media platforms to support public health communication and improve vaccine uptake. REGISTRATION: This study has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021259190).

Immunisation status of UK-bound refugees between January, 2018, and October, 2019: a retrospective, population-based cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: WHO's new Immunization Agenda 2030 places a focus on ensuring migrants and other marginalised groups are offered catch-up vaccinations across the life-course. Yet, it is not known to what extent specific groups, such as refugees, are immunised according to host country schedules, and the implications for policy and practice. We aimed to assess the immunisation coverage of UK-bound refugees undergoing International Organization for Migration (IOM) health assessments through UK resettlement schemes, and calculate risk factors for under-immunisation. METHODS: We undertook a retrospective cross-sectional study of all refugees (children <10 years, adolescents aged 10-19 years, and adults >19 years) in the UK resettlement programme who had at least one migration health assessment conducted by IOM between Jan 1, 2018 and Oct 31, 2019, across 18 countries. Individuals' recorded vaccine coverage was calculated and compared with the UK immunisation schedule and the UK Refugee Technical Instructions. We carried out multivariate logistic regression analyses to assess factors associated with varying immunisation coverage. FINDINGS: Our study included 12 526 refugees of 36 nationalities (median age 17 years [IQR 7-33]; 6147 [49·1%] female; 7955 [63·5%] Syrian nationals). 26 118 vaccine doses were administered by the IOM (most commonly measles, mumps, and rubella [8741 doses]). During the study, 6870 refugees departed for the UK, of whom 5556 (80·9%) had at least one recorded dose of measles-containing vaccine and 5798 (84·4%) had at least one dose of polio vaccine, as per the UK Refugee Technical Instructions, and 1315 (19·1%) had at least one recorded dose of diphtheria-containing vaccine or tetanus-containing vaccine. 764 (11·1%) of refugees were fully aligned with the UK schedule for polio, compared with 2338 (34·0%) for measles and 380 (5·5%) for diphtheria and tetanus. Adults were significantly less likely than children to be in line with the UK immunisation schedule for polio (odds ratio 0·0013, 95% CI 0·0001-0·0052) and measles (0·29, 0·25-0·32). INTERPRETATION: On arrival to the UK, refugees' recorded vaccination coverage is suboptimal and varies by age, nationality, country of health assessment, and by disease, with particularly low coverage reported for diphtheria and tetanus, and among adult refugees. These findings have important implications for the delivery of refugee pre-entry health assessments and catch-up vaccination policy and delivery targeting child, adolescent, and adults migrants in the UK, and other refugee-receiving countries. This research highlights the need for improved data sharing and clearer definition of where responsibilities lie between host countries and health assessment providers. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR300072) and Medical Research Council (MR/N013638/1).

Defining the determinants of vaccine uptake and undervaccination in migrant populations in Europe to improve routine and COVID-19 vaccine uptake: a systematic review.

Understanding why some migrants in Europe are at risk of underimmunisation and show lower vaccination uptake for routine and COVID-19 vaccines is critical if we are to address vaccination inequities and meet the goals of WHO's new Immunisation Agenda 2030. We did a systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42020219214) exploring barriers and facilitators of vaccine uptake (categorised using the 5As taxonomy: access, awareness, affordability, acceptance, activation) and sociodemographic determinants of undervaccination among migrants in the EU and European Economic Area, the UK, and Switzerland. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from 2000 to 2021 for primary research, with no restrictions on language. 5259 data sources were screened, with 67 studies included from 16 countries, representing 366 529 migrants. We identified multiple access barriers-including language, literacy, and communication barriers, practical and legal barriers to accessing and delivering vaccination services, and service barriers such as lack of specific guidelines and knowledge of health-care professionals-for key vaccines including measles-mumps-rubella, diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus, human papillomavirus, influenza, polio, and COVID-19 vaccines. Acceptance barriers were mostly reported in eastern European and Muslim migrants for human papillomavirus, measles, and influenza vaccines. We identified 23 significant determinants of undervaccination in migrants (p<0·05), including African origin, recent migration, and being a refugee or asylum seeker. We did not identify a strong overall association with gender or age. Tailored vaccination messaging, community outreach, and behavioural nudges facilitated uptake. Migrants' barriers to accessing health care are already well documented, and this Review confirms their role in limiting vaccine uptake. These findings hold immediate relevance to strengthening vaccination programmes in high-income countries, including for COVID-19, and suggest that tailored, culturally sensitive, and evidence-informed strategies, unambiguous public health messaging, and health system strengthening are needed to address access and acceptance barriers to vaccination in migrants and create opportunities and pathways for offering catch-up vaccinations to migrants.

Country-specific approaches to latent tuberculosis screening targeting migrants in EU/EEA* countries: A survey of national experts, September 2019 to February 2020.

BackgroundMigrants in low tuberculosis (TB) incidence countries in the European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA) are an at-risk group for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) and are increasingly included in LTBI screening programmes.AimTo investigate current approaches and implement LTBI screening in recently arrived migrants in the EU/EEA and Switzerland.MethodsAt least one TB expert working at a national level from the EU/EEA and one TB expert from Switzerland completed an electronic questionnaire. We used descriptive analyses to calculate percentages, and framework analysis to synthesise free-text responses.ResultsExperts from 32 countries were invited to participate (30 countries responded): 15 experts reported an LTBI screening programme targeting migrants in their country; five reported plans to implement one in the near future; and 10 reported having no programme. LTBI screening was predominantly for asylum seekers (n = 12) and refugees (n = 11). Twelve countries use 'country of origin' as the main eligibility criteria. The countries took similar approaches to diagnosis and treatment but different approaches to follow-up. Six experts reported that drop-out rates in migrants were higher compared with non-migrant groups. Most of the experts (n = 22) called for a renewed focus on expanding efforts to screen for LTBI in migrants arriving in low-incidence countries.ConclusionWe found a range of approaches to LTBI screening of migrants in the EU/EEA and Switzerland. Findings suggest a renewed focus is needed to expand and strengthen efforts to meaningfully include migrants in these programmes, in order to meet regional and global elimination targets for TB.

The relationship between mental health and risk of active tuberculosis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Tuberculosis (TB) and mental illnesses are highly prevalent globally and often coexist. While poor mental health is known to modulate immune function, whether mental disorders play a causal role in TB incidence is unknown. This systematic review examines the association between mental health and TB disease risk to inform clinical and public health measures. DESIGN: Systematic review, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. SEARCH STRATEGY AND SELECTION CRITERIA: MEDLINE, PsycINFO and PsycEXTRA databases were searched alongside reference list and citation searching. Inclusion criteria were original research studies published 1 January 1970-11 May 2020 reporting data on the association between mental health and TB risk. DATA EXTRACTION, APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted on study design and setting, sample characteristics, measurement of mental illness and TB, and outcomes including effect size or prevalence. Studies were critically appraised using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) and Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS) checklists. RESULTS: 1546 records published over 50 years were screened, resulting in 10 studies included reporting data from 607 184 individuals. Studies span across Asia, South America and Africa, and include mood and psychotic disorders. There is robust evidence from cohort studies in Asia demonstrating that depression and schizophrenia can increase risk of active TB, with effect estimates ranging from HR=1.15 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.28) to 2.63 (95% CI 1.74 to 3.96) for depression and HR=1.52 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.79) to RR=3.04 for schizophrenia. These data align with evidence from cross-sectional studies, for example, a large survey across low-income and middle-income countries (n=242 952) reports OR=3.68 (95% CI 3.01 to 4.50) for a depressive episode in those with TB symptoms versus those without. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with mental illnesses including depression and schizophrenia experience increased TB incidence and represent a high-risk population to target for screening and treatment. Integrated care for mental health and TB is needed, and interventions tackling mental illnesses and underlying drivers may help reduce TB incidence globally. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019158071.

Migration and outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease in Europe: a systematic review.

Migrant populations are one of several underimmunised groups in the EU or European Economic Area (EU/EEA), yet little is known about their involvement in outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. This information is vital to develop targeted strategies to improve the health of diverse migrant communities. We did a systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42019157473; Jan 1, 2000, to May 22, 2020) adhering to PRISMA guidelines, to identify studies on vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks (measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, polio, hepatitis A, varicella, Neisseria meningitidis, and Haemophilus influenzae) involving migrants residing in the EU/EEA and Switzerland. We identified 45 studies, reporting on 47 distinct vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks across 13 countries. Most reported outbreaks involving migrants were of measles (n=24; 6496 cases), followed by varicella (n=11; 505 cases), hepatitis A (n=7; 1356 cases), rubella (n=3; 487 cases), and mumps (n=2; 293 cases). 19 (40%) outbreaks, predominantly varicella and measles, were reported in temporary refugee camps or shelters. Of 11 varicella outbreaks, nine (82%) were associated with adult migrants. Half of measles outbreaks (n=11) were associated with migrants from eastern European countries. In conclusion, migrants are involved in vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks in Europe, with adult and child refugees residing in shelters or temporary camps at particular risk, alongside specific nationality groups. Vulnerability varies by disease, setting, and demographics, highlighting the importance of tailoring catch-up vaccination interventions to specific groups in order to meet regional and global vaccination targets as recommended by the new Immunisation Agenda 2030 framework for action. A better understanding of vaccine access and intent in migrant groups and a greater focus on co-designing interventions is urgently needed, with direct implications for COVID-19 vaccine delivery.

Initiation and completion of treatment for latent tuberculosis infection in migrants globally: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is one of the most prevalent infections globally and can lead to the development of active tuberculosis disease. In many low-burden countries, LTBI is concentrated within migrant populations often because of a higher disease burden in the migrant's country of origin. National programmes consequently focus on screening and treating LTBI in migrants to prevent future tuberculosis cases; however, how effective these programmes are is unclear. We aimed to assess LTBI treatment initiation and outcomes among migrants, and the factors that influence both. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Embase, MEDLINE, and Global Health, and manually searched grey literature from Jan 1, 2000, to April 21, 2020. We included primary research articles reporting on LTBI treatment initiation or completion, or both, in migrants and excluded articles in which data were not stratified by migrant status, or in which the data were related to outcomes before 2000. There were no geographical or language restrictions. All included studies were quality appraised using recognised tools depending on their design, and we assessed the heterogeneity of analyses using I2. We extracted data on the numbers of migrants initiating and completing treatment. Our primary outcomes were LTBI treatment initiation and completion in migrants (defined as foreign-born). We used random-effects meta-regression to examine the influence of factors related to these outcomes. The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019140338). FINDINGS: 2199 publications were retrieved screened, after which 39 publications from 13 mostly high-income, low-burden countries were included in our analyses, with treatment initiation and completion data reported for 31 598 migrants positive for LTBI, with not all articles reporting the full pathway from initiation to completion. The pooled estimate for the true proportion of migrants testing positive who initiated treatment was 69% (95% CI 51-84; I2= 99·62%; 4409 of 8764). The pooled estimate for the true proportion of migrants on treatment in datasets, who subsequently completed it was 74% (95% CI = 66-81; I2= 99·19%; 15 516 of 25 629). Where data were provided for the entire treatment pathway, the pooled estimate for the true proportion of migrants who initiated and completed treatment after a positive test was only 52% (95% CI 40-64; I2= 98·90%; 3289 of 6652). Meta-regression showed that LTBI programmes are improving, with more recent reported data (2010-20) associated with better rates of treatment initiation and completion, with multiple complex factors affecting treatment outcomes in migrants. INTERPRETATION: Although our analysis highlights that LTBI treatment initiation and completion in migrants has improved considerably from 2010-20, there is still room for improvement, with drop out reported along the entire treatment pathway. The delivery of these screening and treatment programmes will require further strengthening if the targets to eradicate tuberculosis in low-incidence countries are to be met, with greater focus needed on engaging migrants more effectively in the clinic and understanding the diverse and unique barriers and facilitators to migrants initiating and completing treatment. FUNDING: European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, the Rosetrees Trust, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Academy of Medical Sciences.

Strategies and action points to ensure equitable uptake of COVID-19 vaccinations: A national qualitative interview study to explore the views of undocumented migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees.

INTRODUCTION: Early evidence confirms lower COVID-19 vaccine uptake in established ethnic minority populations, yet there has been little focus on understanding vaccine hesitancy and barriers to vaccination in migrants. Growing populations of precarious migrants (including undocumented migrants, asylum seekers and refugees) in the UK and Europe are considered to be under-immunised groups and may be excluded from health systems, yet little is known about their views on COVID-19 vaccines specifically, which are essential to identify key solutions and action points to strengthen vaccine roll-out. METHODS: We did an in-depth semi-structured qualitative interview study of recently arrived migrants (foreign-born, >18 years old; <10 years in the UK) to the UK with precarious immigration status between September 2020 and March 2021, seeking their input into strategies to strengthen COVID-19 vaccine delivery and uptake. We used the 'Three Cs' model (confidence, complacency and convenience) to explore COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, barriers and access. Data were analysed using a thematic framework approach. Data collection continued until data saturation was reached, and no novel concepts were arising. The study was approved by the University of London ethics committee (REC 2020.00630). RESULTS: We approached 20 migrant support groups nationwide, recruiting 32 migrants (mean age 37.1 years; 21 [66%] female; mean time in the UK 5.6 years [SD 3.7 years]), including refugees (n = 3), asylum seekers (n = 19), undocumented migrants (n = 8) and migrants with limited leave to remain (n = 2) from 15 different countries (5 WHO regions). 23 (72%) of 32 migrants reported being hesitant about accepting a COVID-19 vaccine and two (6%) would definitely not accept a vaccine. Participants communicated concerns over vaccine content, side-effects, lack of accessible information in an appropriate language, lack of trust in the health system and low perceived need. A range of barriers to accessing the COVID-19 vaccine were reported and concerns expressed that their communities would be excluded from or de-prioritised in the roll-out. Undocumented migrants described fears over being charged and facing immigration checks if they present for a vaccine. Participants (n = 10) interviewed after recent government announcements that COVID-19 vaccines can be accessed without facing immigration checks remained unaware of this. Participants stated that convenience of access would be a key factor in their decision around whether to accept a vaccine and proposed alternative access points to primary care services (for example, walk-in centres in trusted places such as foodbanks, community centres and charities), alongside promoting registration with primary care for all, and working closely with communities to produce accessible information on COVID-19 vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Precarious migrants may be hesitant about accepting a COVID-19 vaccine and face multiple and unique barriers to access, requiring simple but innovative solutions to ensure equitable access and uptake. Vaccine hesitancy and low awareness around entitlement and relevant access points could be easily addressed with clear, accessible, and tailored information campaigns, co-produced and delivered by trusted sources within marginalised migrant communities. These findings have immediate relevance to the COVID-19 vaccination initiatives in the UK and in other European and high-income countries with diverse migrant populations. FUNDING: NIHR.

Clinical outcomes and risk factors for COVID-19 among migrant populations in high-income countries: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Migrants in high-income countries may be at increased risk of COVID-19 due to their health and social circumstances, yet the extent to which they are affected and their predisposing risk factors are not clearly understood. We did a systematic review to assess clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in migrant populations, indirect health and social impacts, and to determine key risk factors. METHODS: We did a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO CRD42020222135). We searched multiple databases to 18/11/2020 for peer-reviewed and grey literature on migrants (foreign-born) and COVID-19 in 82 high-income countries. We used our international networks to source national datasets and grey literature. Data were extracted on primary outcomes (cases, hospitalisations, deaths) and we evaluated secondary outcomes on indirect health and social impacts and risk factors using narrative synthesis. RESULTS: 3016 data sources were screened with 158 from 15 countries included in the analysis (35 data sources for primary outcomes: cases [21], hospitalisations [4]; deaths [15]; 123 for secondary outcomes). We found that migrants are at increased risk of infection and are disproportionately represented among COVID-19 cases. Available datasets suggest a similarly disproportionate representation of migrants in reported COVID-19 deaths, as well as increased all-cause mortality in migrants in some countries in 2020. Undocumented migrants, migrant health and care workers, and migrants housed in camps have been especially affected. Migrants experience risk factors including high-risk occupations, overcrowded accommodation, and barriers to healthcare including inadequate information, language barriers, and reduced entitlement. CONCLUSIONS: Migrants in high-income countries are at high risk of exposure to, and infection with, COVID-19. These data are of immediate relevance to national public health and policy responses to the pandemic. Robust data on testing uptake and clinical outcomes in migrants, and barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccination, are urgently needed, alongside strengthening engagement with diverse migrant groups.

Impact of COVID-19 on migrants' access to primary care and implications for vaccine roll-out: a national qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has led to big changes in UK primary care, including rapid digitalisation, with unknown impact on migrant groups. AIM: To understand the pandemic's impact on recently-arrived migrants and their access to primary health care, and implications for vaccine roll-out. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with primary care professionals (PCPs) and migrants in urban, suburban, and rural settings across England. METHOD: Sixty-four PCPs and administrative staff, and 17 recently-arrived migrants were recruited using purposive, convenience, and snowball sampling. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted by telephone. Data were analysed iteratively, informed by thematic analysis. RESULTS: PCPs and migrants concurred that digitalisation and virtual consultations have amplified existing inequalities in access to health care for many migrants, due to a lack of digital literacy and access to technology, compounded by language barriers. PCPs were concerned that virtual consultations resulted in difficulties building trust and risked missing safeguarding cues. Both PCPs and migrants highlighted challenges around registering and accessing health care due to physical closure of surgeries, as well as indirect discrimination, language and communication barriers, and a lack of access to targeted and tailored COVID-19 information or interventions. Migrants reported a range of specific beliefs, from acceptance to mistrust, around COVID-19 and potential COVID-19 vaccines, often influenced by misinformation. Innovative opportunities were suggested, including translated digital health advice using text templates and YouTube; these merit further exploration. CONCLUSION: Pandemic-related changes to primary care delivery may become permanent; some migrant groups are at risk of digital exclusion and may need targeted additional support to access services. Solutions are needed to address vaccine hesitancy in marginalised groups to ensure equitable COVID-19 vaccine uptake.

Extrapulmonary tuberculosis among migrants in Europe, 1995 to 2017.

OBJECTIVES: The proportion of tuberculosis (TB) cases occurring in migrants in Europe is increasing. Extrapulmonary TB poses challenges in diagnosis and treatment and causes serious morbidity and mortality, yet its extent in migrant populations is unclear. We assessed patterns of extrapulmonary TB in migrants across the European Union (EU)/European Free Trade Association (EFTA). We investigated the proportion of extrapulmonary TB cases among migrants versus non-migrants, and variations by specific site of disease, reporting European region, and migrant region of origin. METHODS: We carried out a cross-sectional secondary database analysis, utilizing 23 years of data collected between 1995 and 2017 from the European Surveillance System of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control for 32 EU/EFTA countries. RESULTS: In total, 1 270 896 TB cases were included, comprising 326 987 migrants (25.7%) and 943 909 non-migrants (74.3%). Of TB cases among migrants, 45.2% (n = 147 814) were extrapulmonary compared to 21.7% (n = 204 613) among non-migrants (p < 0.001). Lymphatic, bone/joint and peritoneal/digestive TB were more common among migrant than non-migrant extrapulmonary cases. A lower proportion of extrapulmonary TB was seen in Eastern Europe (17.4%, n = 98 656 of 566 170) and Southern Europe (29.6%, n = 62 481 of 210 828) compared with Western (35.7%, n = 89 498 of 250 517) and Northern Europe (41.8%, n = 101 792 of 243 381). Migrants from South-East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa were at highest risk of extrapulmonary disease, with 62.0% (n = 55 401 of 89 353) and 54.5% (n = 38 327 of 70 378) of cases, respectively, being extrapulmonary. CONCLUSIONS: Among TB cases in the EU/EFTA, extrapulmonary disease is significantly more common in migrants than in non-migrants. There is a need to improve clinical awareness of extrapulmonary TB and to integrate its detection into screening programmes.

A systematic review of the impact of psychosocial factors on immunity: Implications for enhancing BCG response against tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis (TB) remains an urgent global public health priority, causing 1.5 million deaths worldwide in 2018. There is evidence that psychosocial factors modulate immune function; however, how this may influence TB risk or BCG vaccine response, and whether this pathway can be modified through social protection, has not been investigated. This paper aims to: a) systematically review evidence of how psychosocial factors influence the expression of biomarkers of immunity, and b) apply this general evidence to propose plausible TB-specific pathways for future study. METHODS: Papers reporting on the impact of psychosocial stressors on immune biomarkers in relation to infectious disease risk were identified through a search of the databases MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Global Health and PsycEXTRA alongside reference list and citation searching of key papers. Data extraction and critical appraisal were carried out using a standardised form. The findings were tabulated and synthesised narratively by infectious disease category, and used to propose plausible mechanisms for how psychosocial exposures might influence immune outcomes relevant to TB and BCG response. RESULTS: 27,026 citations were identified, of which 51 met the inclusion criteria. The literature provides evidence of a relationship between psychosocial factors and immune biomarkers. While the direction and strength of associations is heterogenous, some overarching patterns emerged: adverse psychosocial factors (e.g. stress) were generally associated with compromised vaccine response and higher antibody titres to herpesviruses, and vice versa for positive psychosocial factors (e.g. social support). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence identifies pathways linking psychosocial factors and immune response: co-viral infection and immune suppression, both of which are potentially relevant to TB and BCG response. However, the heterogeneity in the strength and nature of the impact of psychosocial factors on immune function, and lack of research on the implications of this relationship for TB, underscore the need for TB-specific research.

Factors influencing the higher incidence of tuberculosis among migrants and ethnic minorities in the UK.

Migrants and ethnic minorities in the UK have higher rates of tuberculosis (TB) compared with the general population. Historically, much of the disparity in incidence between UK-born and migrant populations has been attributed to differential pathogen exposure, due to migration from high-incidence regions and the transnational connections maintained with TB endemic countries of birth or ethnic origin. However, focusing solely on exposure fails to address the relatively high rates of progression to active disease observed in some populations of latently infected individuals. A range of factors that disproportionately affect migrants and ethnic minorities, including genetic susceptibility, vitamin D deficiency and co-morbidities such as diabetes mellitus and HIV, also increase vulnerability to infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M.tb) or reactivation of latent infection. Furthermore, ethnic socio-economic disparities and the experience of migration itself may contribute to differences in TB incidence, as well as cultural and structural barriers to accessing healthcare. In this review, we discuss both biological and anthropological influences relating to risk of pathogen exposure, vulnerability to infection or development of active disease, and access to treatment for migrant and ethnic minorities in the UK.