Do social protection programmes affect the burden of breast and cervical cancer? A systematic review.

Background: Socioeconomic conditions are strongly associated with breast and cervical cancer incidence and mortality patterns; therefore, social protection programmes (SPPs) might impact these cancers. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of SPPs on breast and cervical cancer outcomes and their risk/protective factors. Methods: Five databases were searched for articles that assessed participation in PPS and the incidence, survival, mortality (primary outcomes), screening, staging at diagnosis and risk/protective factors (secondary outcomes) for these cancers. Only peer-reviewed quantitative studies of women receiving SPPs compared to eligible women not receiving benefits were included. Independent reviewers selected articles, assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. A harvest plot represents the included studies and shows the direction of effect, sample size and risk of bias. Findings: Of 17,080 documents retrieved, 43 studies were included in the review. No studies evaluated the primary outcomes. They all examined the relationship between SPPs and screening, as well as risk and protective factors. The harvest plot showed that in lower risk of bias studies, participants of SPPs had lower weight and fertility, were older at sexual debut, and breastfed their infants for longer. Interpretation: No studies have yet assessed the effect of SPPs on breast and cervical cancer incidence, survival, or mortality; nevertheless, the existing evidence suggests positive impacts on risk and protective factors.

Predictors of incomplete COVID-19 vaccine schedule among adults in Scotland: Two retrospective cohort analyses of the primary schedule and third dose.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination continues to be the key public health measure for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes. Certain groups may be at higher risk of incomplete vaccine schedule, which may leave them vulnerable to COVID-19 hospitalisation and death. AIM: To identify the sociodemographic and clinical predictors for not receiving a scheduled COVID-19 vaccine after previously receiving one. METHODS: We conducted two retrospective cohort studies with ≥3.7 million adults aged ≥18 years in Scotland. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aOR) of not receiving a second, and separately a third dose between December 2020 and May 2022. Independent variables included sociodemographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: Of 3,826,797 people in the study population who received one dose, 3,732,596 (97.5%) received two doses, and 3,263,153 (86.5%) received all doses available during the study period. The most strongly associated predictors for not receiving the second dose were: being aged 18-29 (reference: 50-59 years; aOR:4.26; 95% confidence interval (CI):4.14-4.37); hospitalisation due to a potential vaccine related adverse event of special interest (AESI) (reference: not having a potential AESI, aOR:3.78; 95%CI: 3.29-4.35); and living in the most deprived quintile (reference: least deprived quintile, aOR:3.24; 95%CI: 3.16-3.32). The most strongly associated predictors for not receiving the third dose were: being 18-29 (reference: 50-59 years aOR:4.44; 95%CI: 4.38-4.49), living in the most deprived quintile (reference: least deprived quintile aOR:2.56; 95%CI: 2.53-2.59), and Black, Caribbean, or African ethnicity (reference: White ethnicity aOR:2.38; 95%CI: 2.30-2.46). Pregnancy, previous vaccination with mRNA-1273, smoking history, individual and household severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positivity, and having an unvaccinated adult in the household were also associated with incomplete vaccine schedule. CONCLUSION: We observed several risk factors that predict incomplete COVID-19 vaccination schedule. Vaccination programmes must take immediate action to ensure maximum uptake, particularly for populations vulnerable to severe COVID-19 outcomes.

Million Migrants study of healthcare and mortality outcomes in non-EU migrants and refugees to England: Analysis protocol for a linked population-based cohort study of 1.5 million migrants.

Background: In 2017, 15.6% of the people living in England were born abroad, yet we have a limited understanding of their use of health services and subsequent health conditions. This linked population-based cohort study aims to describe the hospital-based healthcare and mortality outcomes of 1.5 million non-European Union (EU) migrants and refugees in England. Methods and analysis: We will link four data sources: first, non-EU migrant tuberculosis pre-entry screening data; second, refugee pre-entry health assessment data; third, national hospital episode statistics; and fourth, Office of National Statistics death records. Using this linked dataset, we will then generate a population-based cohort to examine hospital-based events and mortality outcomes in England between Jan 1, 2006, and Dec 31, 2017. We will compare outcomes across three groups in our analyses: 1) non-EU international migrants, 2) refugees, and 3) general population of England. Ethics and dissemination: We will obtain approval to use unconsented patient identifiable data from the Secretary of State for Health through the Confidentiality Advisory Group and the National Health Service Research Ethics Committee. After data linkage, we will destroy identifying data and undertake all analyses using the pseudonymised dataset. The results will provide policy makers and civil society with detailed information about the health needs of non-EU international migrants and refugees in England.

Morbidity and mortality in homeless individuals, prisoners, sex workers, and individuals with substance use disorders in high-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Inclusion health focuses on people in extremely poor health due to poverty, marginalisation, and multimorbidity. We aimed to review morbidity and mortality data on four overlapping populations who experience considerable social exclusion: homeless populations, individuals with substance use disorders, sex workers, and imprisoned individuals. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies published between Jan 1, 2005, and Oct 1, 2015. We included only systematic reviews, meta-analyses, interventional studies, and observational studies that had morbidity and mortality outcomes, were published in English, from high-income countries, and were done in populations with a history of homelessness, imprisonment, sex work, or substance use disorder (excluding cannabis and alcohol use). Studies with only perinatal outcomes and studies of individuals with a specific health condition or those recruited from intensive care or high dependency hospital units were excluded. We screened studies using systematic review software and extracted data from published reports. Primary outcomes were measures of morbidity (prevalence or incidence) and mortality (standardised mortality ratios [SMRs] and mortality rates). Summary estimates were calculated using a random effects model. FINDINGS: Our search identified 7946 articles, of which 337 studies were included for analysis. All-cause standardised mortality ratios were significantly increased in 91 (99%) of 92 extracted datapoints and were 11·86 (95% CI 10·42-13·30; I2=94·1%) in female individuals and 7·88 (7·03-8·74; I2=99·1%) in men. Summary SMR estimates for the International Classification of Diseases disease categories with two or more included datapoints were highest for deaths due to injury, poisoning, and other external causes, in both men (7·89; 95% CI 6·40-9·37; I2=98·1%) and women (18·72; 13·73-23·71; I2=91·5%). Disease prevalence was consistently raised across the following categories: infections (eg, highest reported was 90% for hepatitis C, 67 [65%] of 103 individuals for hepatitis B, and 133 [51%] of 263 individuals for latent tuberculosis infection), mental health (eg, highest reported was 9 [4%] of 227 individuals for schizophrenia), cardiovascular conditions (eg, highest reported was 32 [13%] of 247 individuals for coronary heart disease), and respiratory conditions (eg, highest reported was 9 [26%] of 35 individuals for asthma). INTERPRETATION: Our study shows that homeless populations, individuals with substance use disorders, sex workers, and imprisoned individuals experience extreme health inequities across a wide range of health conditions, with the relative effect of exclusion being greater in female individuals than male individuals. The high heterogeneity between studies should be explored further using improved data collection in population subgroups. The extreme health inequity identified demands intensive cross-sectoral policy and service action to prevent exclusion and improve health outcomes in individuals who are already marginalised. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, National Institute for Health Research, NHS England, NHS Research Scotland Scottish Senior Clinical Fellowship, Medical Research Council, Chief Scientist Office, and the Central and North West London NHS Trust.