Driving delivery and uptake of catch-up vaccination among adolescent and adult migrants in UK general practice: a mixed methods pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Migrants in the UK and Europe face vulnerability to vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) due to missed childhood vaccines and doses and marginalisation from health systems. Ensuring migrants receive catch-up vaccinations, including MMR, Td/IPV, MenACWY, and HPV, is essential to align them with UK and European vaccination schedules and ultimately reduce morbidity and mortality. However, recent evidence highlights poor awareness and implementation of catch-up vaccination guidelines by UK primary care staff, requiring novel approaches to strengthen the primary care pathway. METHODS: The 'Vacc on Track' study (May 2021-September 2022) aimed to measure under-vaccination rates among migrants in UK primary care and establish new referral pathways for catch-up vaccination. Participants included migrants aged 16 or older, born outside of Western Europe, North America, Australia, or New Zealand, in two London boroughs. Quantitative data on vaccination history, referral, uptake, and sociodemographic factors were collected, with practice nurses prompted to deliver catch-up vaccinations following UK guidelines. Focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with staff and migrants explored views on delivering catch-up vaccination, including barriers, facilitators, and opportunities. Data were analysed using STATA12 and NVivo 12. RESULTS: Results from 57 migrants presenting to study sites from 18 countries (mean age 41 [SD 7.2] years; 62% female; mean 11.3 [SD 9.1] years in UK) over a minimum of 6 months of follow-up revealed significant catch-up vaccination needs, particularly for MMR (49 [86%] required catch-up vaccination) and Td/IPV (50 [88%]). Fifty-three (93%) participants were referred for any catch-up vaccination, but completion of courses was low (6 [12%] for Td/IPV and 33 [64%] for MMR), suggesting individual and systemic barriers. Qualitative in-depth interviews (n = 39) with adult migrants highlighted the lack of systems currently in place in the UK to offer catch-up vaccination to migrants on arrival and the need for health-care provider skills and knowledge of catch-up vaccination to be improved. Focus group discussions and interviews with practice staff (n = 32) identified limited appointment/follow-up time, staff knowledge gaps, inadequate engagement routes, and low incentivisation as challenges that will need to be addressed. However, they underscored the potential of staff champions, trust-building mechanisms, and community-based approaches to strengthen catch-up vaccination uptake among migrants. CONCLUSIONS: Given the significant catch-up vaccination needs of migrants in our sample, and the current barriers to driving uptake identified, our findings suggest it will be important to explore this public health issue further, potentially through a larger study or trial. Strengthening existing pathways, staff capacity and knowledge in primary care, alongside implementing new strategies centred on cultural competence and building trust with migrant communities will be important focus areas.

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.

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.

Co-designing a theory-informed, multicomponent intervention to increase vaccine uptake with Congolese migrants: A qualitative, community-based participatory research study (LISOLO MALAMU).

INTRODUCTION: Disparities in the uptake of routine and COVID-19 vaccinations have been observed in migrant populations, and attributed to issues of mistrust, access and low vaccine confidence. Participatory research approaches and behaviour change theory hold the potential for developing tailored vaccination interventions that address these complex barriers in partnership with communities and should be explored further. METHODS: This study used a theory-informed, community-based participatory research approach to co-design a culturally tailored behaviour change intervention aimed at increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake among Congolese migrants in London, United Kingdom (2021-2022). It was designed and led by a community-academic partnership in response to unmet needs in the Congolese community as the COVID-19 pandemic started. Barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccination, information and communication preferences, and intervention suggestions were explored through qualitative in-depth interviews with Congolese migrants, thematically analysed, and mapped to the theoretical domains framework (TDF) and the capability, opportunity, motivation, behaviour model to identify target behaviours and strategies to include in interventions. Interventions were co-designed and tailored in workshops involving Congolese migrants. RESULTS: Thirty-two Congolese adult migrants (24 (75%) women, mean 14.3 (SD: 7.5) years in the United Kingdom, mean age 52.6 (SD: 11.0) years) took part in in-depth interviews and 16 (same sample) took part in co-design workshops. Fourteen barriers and 10 facilitators to COVID-19 vaccination were identified; most barrier data related to four TDF domains (beliefs about consequences; emotion; social influences and environmental context and resources), and the behavioural diagnosis concluded interventions should target improving psychological capability, reflective and automatic motivations and social opportunities. Strategies included culturally tailored behaviour change techniques based on education, persuasion, modelling, enablement and environmental restructuring, which resulted in a co-designed intervention comprising community-led workshops, plays and posters. Findings and interventions were disseminated through a community celebration event. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates how behavioural theory can be applied to co-designing tailored interventions with underserved migrant communities through a participatory research paradigm to address a range of health issues and inequalities. Future research should build on this empowering approach, with the goal of developing more sensitive vaccination services and interventions which respond to migrant communities' unique cultural needs and realities. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient and public involvement (PPI) were embedded in the participatory study design and approach, with community members co-producing all stages of the study and co-authoring this paper. An independent PPI board (St George's Migrant Health Research Group Patient and Public Involvement Advisory Board) comprising five adult migrants with lived experience of accessing healthcare in the United Kingdom were also consulted at significant points over the course of the study.

Defining drivers of under-immunization and vaccine hesitancy in refugee and migrant populations.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Some refugee and migrant populations globally showed lower uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and are also considered to be an under-immunized group for routine vaccinations. These communities may experience a range of barriers to vaccination systems, yet there is a need to better explore drivers of under-immunization and vaccine hesitancy in these mobile groups. METHODS: We did a global rapid review to explore drivers of under-immunization and vaccine hesitancy to define strategies to strengthen both COVID-19 and routine vaccination uptake, searching MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health PsycINFO and grey literature. Qualitative data were analysed thematically to identify drivers of under-immunization and vaccine hesitancy, and then categorized using the 'Increasing Vaccination Model'. RESULTS: Sixty-three papers were included, reporting data on diverse population groups, including refugees, asylum seekers, labour migrants and undocumented migrants in 22 countries. Drivers of under-immunization and vaccine hesitancy pertaining to a wide range of vaccines were covered, including COVID-19 (n = 27), human papillomavirus (13), measles or Measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) (3), influenza (3), tetanus (1) and vaccination in general. We found a range of factors driving under-immunization and hesitancy in refugee and migrant groups, including unique awareness and access factors that need to be better considered in policy and service delivery. Acceptability of vaccination was often deeply rooted in social and historical context and influenced by personal risk perception. CONCLUSIONS: These findings hold direct relevance to current efforts to ensure high levels of global coverage for a range of vaccines and to ensure that marginalized refugee and migrant populations are included in the national vaccination plans of low-, middle- and high-income countries. We found a stark lack of research from low- and middle-income and humanitarian contexts on vaccination in mobile groups. This needs to be urgently rectified if we are to design and deliver effective programmes that ensure high coverage for COVID-19 and routine vaccinations.

Codesigning an intervention to strengthen COVID-19 vaccine uptake in Congolese migrants in the UK (LISOLO MALAMU): a participatory qualitative study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Migrants positively contribute to host societies yet experience barriers to health and vaccination services and systems and are considered to be an underimmunised group in many European countries. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted stark inequities in vaccine uptake, with migrants facing access and informational barriers and lower vaccine confidence. A key challenge, therefore, is developing tailored vaccination interventions, services and systems which account for and respond to the unique drivers of vaccine uptake in different migrant populations. Participatory research approaches, which meaningfully involve communities in co-constructing knowledge and solutions, have generated considerable interest in recent years for those tasked with designing and delivering public health interventions. How such approaches can be used to strengthen initiatives for COVID-19 and routine vaccination merits greater consideration. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: LISOLO MALAMU ('Good Talk') is a community-based participatory research study which uses qualitative and coproduction methodologies to involve adult Congolese migrants in developing a tailored intervention to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Led by a community-academic coalition, the study will involve (1) semistructured in-depth interviews with adult Congolese migrants (born in Democratic Republic of Congo, >18 years), (2) interviews with professional stakeholders and (3) codesign workshops with adult Congolese migrants. Qualitative data will be analysed collaboratively using reflexive thematic analysis, and behaviour change theory will be used in parallel to support the coproduction of interventions and make recommendations across socioecological levels. The study will run from approximately November 2021 to November 2022. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was granted by the St George's University Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 2021.0128). Study findings will be disseminated to a range of local, national and international audiences, and a community celebration event will be held to show impact and recognise contributions. Recommendations for implementation and evaluation of prototyped interventions will be made.

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).

"We don't routinely check vaccination background in adults": a national qualitative study of barriers and facilitators to vaccine delivery and uptake in adult migrants through UK primary care.

OBJECTIVES: Explore primary care professionals' views around barriers/facilitators to catch-up vaccination in adult migrants (foreign-born; over 18 years of age) with incomplete/uncertain vaccination status and for routine vaccines to inform development of interventions to improve vaccine uptake and coverage. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study with purposive sampling and thematic analysis. SETTING: UK primary care. PARTICIPANTS: 64 primary care professionals (PCPs): 48 clinical-staff including general practitioners, practice nurses and healthcare assistants; 16 administrative-staff including practice managers and receptionists (mean age 45 years; 84.4% women; a range of ethnicities). RESULTS: Participants highlighted direct and indirect barriers to catch-up vaccines in adult migrants who may have missed vaccines as children, missed boosters and not be aligned with the UK's vaccine schedule, from both personal and service-delivery levels, with themes including: lack of training and knowledge of guidance among staff; unclear or incomplete vaccine records; and lack of incentivisation (including financial) and dedicated time and care pathways. Adult migrants were reported as being excluded from many vaccination initiatives, most of which focus exclusively on children. Where delivery models existed, they were diverse and fragmented, but included a combination of opportunistic and proactive programmes. PCPs noted that migrants expressed to them a range of views around vaccines, from positivity to uncertainty, to refusal, with specific nationality groups reported as more hesitant about specific vaccines, including measles, mumps and rubella (MMR). CONCLUSIONS: WHO's new Immunization Agenda 2030 calls for greater focus to be placed on delivering vaccination across the life course, targeting underimmunised groups for catch-up vaccination at any age, and UK primary care services therefore have a key role. Vaccine uptake in adult migrants could be improved through implementing new financial incentives or inclusion of adult migrant vaccination targets in Quality Outcomes Framework, strengthening care pathways and training and working directly with local community-groups to improve understanding around the benefits of vaccination at all ages.

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.

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.

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.

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.

What do primary care staff know and do about blood borne virus testing and care for migrant patients? A national survey.

BACKGROUND: UK migrants born in intermediate to high prevalence areas for blood borne viruses (BBV) including hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV are at increased risk of these infections. National guidance from Public Health England (PHE) and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends primary care test this population to increase diagnoses and treatment. We aimed to investigate primary care professionals' knowledge of entitlements, and perceptions of barriers, for migrants accessing healthcare, and their policies, and reported practices and influences on provision of BBV testing in migrants. METHODS: A pre-piloted questionnaire was distributed between October 2017 and January 2018 to primary care professionals attending the Royal College of General Practitioners and Best Practice in Primary Care conferences, via a link in PHE Vaccine Updates and through professional networks. Survey results were analysed to give descriptive statistics, and responses by respondent characteristics: profession, region, practice size, and frequency of seeing migrant patients. Responses were considered on a per question basis with response rates for each question presented with the results. RESULTS: Four hundred fourteen questionnaires were returned with responses varying by question, representing an estimated 5.7% of English GP practices overall. Only 14% of respondents' practices systematically identified migrant patients for testing. Universal opt-out testing was offered to newly registering migrant patients by 18% of respondents for hepatitis B, 17% for hepatitis C and 21% for HIV. Knowledge of healthcare entitlements varied; fewer clinical staff knew that general practice consultations were free to all migrants (76%) than for urgent care (88%). Performance payment structure (76%) had the greatest reported influence on testing, followed by PHE and Clinical Commissioning Group recommendations (73% each). Language and culture were perceived to be the biggest barriers to accessing care. CONCLUSIONS: BBV testing for migrant patients in primary care is usually ad hoc, which is likely to lead to testing opportunities being missed. Knowledge of migrants' entitlements to healthcare varies and could affect access to care. Interventions to improve professional awareness and identification of migrant patients requiring BBV testing are needed to reduce the undiagnosed and untreated burden of BBVs in this vulnerable population.

Infectious disease testing of UK-bound refugees: a population-based, cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The UK, like a number of other countries, has a refugee resettlement programme. External factors, such as higher prevalence of infectious diseases in the country of origin and circumstances of travel, are likely to increase the infectious disease risk of refugees, but published data is scarce. The International Organization for Migration carries out and collates data on standardised pre-entry health assessments (HA), including testing for infectious diseases, on all UK refugee applicants as part of the resettlement programme. From this data, we report the yield of selected infectious diseases (tuberculosis (TB), HIV, syphilis, hepatitis B and hepatitis C) and key risk factors with the aim of informing public health policy. METHODS: We examined a large cohort of refugees (n = 18,418) who underwent a comprehensive pre-entry HA between March 2013 and August 2017. We calculated yields of infectious diseases stratified by nationality and compared these with published (mostly WHO) estimates. We assessed factors associated with case positivity in univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The number of refugees included in the analysis varied by disease (range 8506-9759). Overall yields were notably high for hepatitis B (188 cases; 2.04%, 95% CI 1.77-2.35%), while yields were below 1% for active TB (9 cases; 92 per 100,000, 48-177), HIV (31 cases; 0.4%, 0.3-0.5%), syphilis (23 cases; 0.24%, 0.15-0.36%) and hepatitis C (38 cases; 0.41%, 0.30-0.57%), and varied widely by nationality. In multivariable analysis, sub-Saharan African nationality was a risk factor for several infections (HIV: OR 51.72, 20.67-129.39; syphilis: OR 4.24, 1.21-24.82; hepatitis B: OR 4.37, 2.91-6.41). Hepatitis B (OR 2.23, 1.05-4.76) and hepatitis C (OR 5.19, 1.70-15.88) were associated with history of blood transfusion. Syphilis (OR 3.27, 1.07-9.95) was associated with history of torture, whereas HIV (OR 1521.54, 342.76-6754.23) and hepatitis B (OR 7.65, 2.33-25.18) were associated with sexually transmitted infection. Syphilis was associated with HIV (OR 10.27, 1.30-81.40). CONCLUSIONS: Testing refugees in an overseas setting through a systematic HA identified patients with a range of infectious diseases. Our results reflect similar patterns found in other programmes and indicate that the yields for infectious diseases vary by region and nationality. This information may help in designing a more targeted approach to testing, which has already started in the UK programme. Further work is needed to refine how best to identify infections in refugees, taking these factors into account.

Acceptability of insecticide-treated clothing for malaria prevention among migrant rubber tappers in Myanmar: a cluster-randomized non-inferiority crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Insecticide-treated clothing (ITC) has long been used for military and outdoor recreational purposes and there is substantial evidence to show that it can protect against arthropod biting. As a complementary vector control measure, ITC could be used to address outdoor transmission of malaria, particularly among mobile and migrant populations and night-time workers such as rubber tappers, who may be beyond the reach of core interventions. However, more information is required on acceptability and preferences of target groups towards ITC to understand whether it could be a viable strategy in Myanmar. METHODS: A cluster-randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority crossover trial was performed to determine acceptability of ITC versus identical, untreated clothing (NTC) among migrant rubber tappers. The study took place between January and May 2015 with 234 participants in 16 clusters in Thanbyuzayat Township, Mon State, Myanmar. Participants were randomly assigned to the order of clothing distribution and followed up at 2, 4 and 6 week intervals. Acceptability was assessed through structured questionnaires, focus group discussions and in-depth interviews. A cluster-level non-inferiority analysis was conducted using STATA, while qualitative data were digitally recorded, transcribed and content-analysed to identify patterns and themes, and managed thematically in Excel 2010®. RESULTS: Acceptability of both types of clothing was high. ITC was deduced to be non-inferior to NTC for seven out of eight indicators regarding perceptions (looks nice, is durable, is pleasant to wear for nighttime work, reduces mosquito bites, would recommend the clothing, would buy the clothing, like the clothing overall). A high proportion of respondents reported that the clothing reduced mosquito bites (ITC-98%; NTC-94%). Clothing was worn regularly (about 11 times in the previous two weeks). The most common reasons for not wearing the clothing every night were that it was being washed or dried, or the participant did not go to work. CONCLUSIONS: The high level of acceptability suggests that ITC could be an appropriate strategy for personal protection amongst migrant rubber tappers in outdoor transmission settings in Myanmar. However, more research is needed into the feasibility and protective efficacy of ITC before it can be considered for wider roll-out. Trial registration Clinical trials ACTRN12615000432516.