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.

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.

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.

Reducing the impact of the coronavirus on disadvantaged migrants and ethnic minorities.

Studies from several countries have shown that the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionally affected migrants. Many have numerous risk factors making them vulnerable to infection and poor clinical outcome. Policies to mitigate this effect need to take into account public health principles of inclusion, universal health coverage and the right to health. In addition, the migrant health agenda has been compromised by the suspension of asylum processes and resettlement, border closures, increased deportations and lockdown of camps and excessively restrictive public health measures. International organizations including the World Health Organization and the World Bank have recommended measures to actively counter racism, xenophobia and discrimination by systemically including migrants in the COVID-19 pandemic response. Such recommendations include issuing additional support, targeted communication and reducing barriers to accessing health services and information. Some countries have had specific policies and outreach to migrant groups, including facilitating vaccination. Measures and policies targeting migrants should be evaluated, and good models disseminated widely.

Global patterns of mortality in international migrants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: 258 million people reside outside their country of birth; however, to date no global systematic reviews or meta-analyses of mortality data for these international migrants have been done. We aimed to review and synthesise available mortality data on international migrants. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases for observational studies, systematic reviews, and randomised controlled trials published between Jan 1, 2001, and March 31, 2017, without language restrictions. We included studies reporting mortality outcomes for international migrants of any age residing outside their country of birth. Studies that recruited participants exclusively from intensive care or high dependency hospital units, with an existing health condition or status, or a particular health exposure were excluded. We also excluded studies limited to maternal or perinatal outcomes. We screened studies using systematic review software and extracted data from published reports. The main outcomes were all-cause and International Classification of Diseases, tenth revision (ICD-10) cause-specific standardised mortality ratios (SMRs) and absolute mortality rates. We calculated summary estimates using random-effects models. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017073608. FINDINGS: Of the 12 480 articles identified by our search, 96 studies were eligible for inclusion. The studies were geographically diverse and included data from all global regions and for 92 countries. 5464 mortality estimates for more than 15·2 million migrants were included, of which 5327 (97%) were from high-income countries, 115 (2%) were from middle-income countries, and 22 (<1%) were from low-income countries. Few studies included mortality estimates for refugees (110 estimates), asylum seekers (144 estimates), or labour migrants (six estimates). The summary estimate of all-cause SMR for international migrants was lower than one when compared with the general population in destination countries (0·70 [95% CI 0·65-0·76]; I2=99·8%). All-cause SMR was lower in both male migrants (0·72 [0·63-0·81]; I2=99·8%) and female migrants (0·75 [0·67-0·84]; I2=99·8%) compared with the general population. A mortality advantage was evident for refugees (SMR 0·50 [0·46-0·54]; I2=89·8%), but not for asylum seekers (1·05 [0·89-1·24]; I2=54·4%), although limited data was available on these groups. SMRs for all causes of death were lower in migrants compared with the general populations in the destination country across all 13 ICD-10 categories analysed, with the exception of infectious diseases and external causes. Heterogeneity was high across the majority of analyses. Point estimates of all-cause age-standardised mortality in migrants ranged from 420 to 874 per 100 000 population. INTERPRETATION: Our study showed that international migrants have a mortality advantage compared with general populations, and that this advantage persisted across the majority of ICD-10 disease categories. The mortality advantage identified will be representative of international migrants in high-income countries who are studying, working, or have joined family members in these countries. However, our results might not reflect the health outcomes of more marginalised groups in low-income and middle-income countries because little data were available for these groups, highlighting an important gap in existing research. Our results present an opportunity to reframe the public discourse on international migration and health in high-income countries. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council, Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, Department for International Development, Fogarty International Center, Grand Challenges Canada, International Development Research Centre Canada, Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, National Cancer Institute, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, National Institute of Mental Health, Swiss National Science Foundation, World Diabetes Foundation, UK National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Imperial College Healthcare Charity, and European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) Study Group Research Funding for the ESCMID Study Group for Infections in Travellers and Migrants.

Health impacts of parental migration on left-behind children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Globally, a growing number of children and adolescents are left behind when parents migrate. We investigated the effect of parental migration on the health of left behind-children and adolescents in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PsychINFO, Global Index Medicus, Scopus, and Popline from inception to April 27, 2017, without language restrictions, for observational studies investigating the effects of parental migration on nutrition, mental health, unintentional injuries, infectious disease, substance use, unprotected sex, early pregnancy, and abuse in left-behind children (aged 0-19 years) in LMICs. We excluded studies in which less than 50% of participants were aged 0-19 years, the mean or median age of participants was more than 19 years, fewer than 50% of parents had migrated for more than 6 months, or the mean or median duration of migration was less than 6 months. We screened studies using systematic review software and extracted summary estimates from published reports independently. The main outcomes were risk and prevalence of health outcomes, including nutrition (stunting, wasting, underweight, overweight and obesity, low birthweight, and anaemia), mental health (depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, conduct disorders, self-harm, and suicide), unintentional injuries, substance use, abuse, and infectious disease. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects models. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017064871. FINDINGS: Our search identified 10 284 records, of which 111 studies were included for analysis, including a total of 264 967 children (n=106 167 left-behind children and adolescents; n=158 800 children and adolescents of non-migrant parents). 91 studies were done in China and focused on effects of internal labour migration. Compared with children of non-migrants, left-behind children had increased risk of depression and higher depression scores (RR 1·52 [95% CI 1·27-1·82]; SMD 0·16 [0·10-0·21]), anxiety (RR 1·85 [1·36-2·53]; SMD 0·18 [0·11-0·26]), suicidal ideation (RR 1·70 [1·28-2·26]), conduct disorder (SMD 0·16 [0·04-0·28]), substance use (RR 1·24 [1·00-1·52]), wasting (RR 1·13 [1·02-1·24]) and stunting (RR 1·12 [1·00-1·26]). No differences were identified between left-behind children and children of non-migrants for other nutrition outcomes, unintentional injury, abuse, or diarrhoea. No studies reported outcomes for other infectious diseases, self-harm, unprotected sex, or early pregnancy. Study quality varied across the included studies, with 43% of studies at high or unclear risk of bias across five or more domains. INTERPRETATION: Parental migration is detrimental to the health of left-behind children and adolescents, with no evidence of any benefit. Policy makers and health-care professionals need to take action to improve the health of these young people. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust.

Tuberculosis incidence among migrants according to migrant status: a cohort study, Denmark, 1993 to 2015.

BackgroundMigrants account for the majority of tuberculosis (TB) cases in low-incidence countries in western Europe. TB incidence among migrants might be influenced by patterns of migration, but this is not well understood.AimTo investigate differences in TB risk across migrant groups according to migrant status and region of origin.MethodsThis prospective cohort study included migrants ≥ 18 years of age who obtained residency in Denmark between 1 January 1993 and 31 December 2015, matched 1:6 to Danish-born individuals. Migrants were grouped according to legal status of residency and region of origin. Incidence rates (IR) and incidence rate ratios (IRR) were estimated by Poisson regression.ResultsThe cohort included 142,314 migrants. Migrants had significantly higher TB incidence (IR: 120/100,000 person-years (PY); 95% confidence interval (CI): 115-126) than Danish-born individuals (IR: 4/100,000 PY; 95% CI: 3-4). The IRR was significantly higher in all migrant groups compared with Danish-born (p < 0.01). A particularly higher risk was seen among family-reunified to refugees (IRR: 61.8; 95% CI: 52.7-72.4), quota refugees (IRR: 46.0; 95% CI: 36.6-57.6) and former asylum seekers (IRR: 45.3; 95% CI: 40.2-51.1), whereas lower risk was seen among family-reunified to Danish/Nordic citizens (IRR 15.8; 95% CI: 13.6-18.4) and family-reunified to immigrants (IRR: 16.9; 95% CI: 13.5-21.3).DiscussionAll migrants had higher TB risk compared with the Danish-born population. While screening programmes focus mostly on asylum seekers, other migrant groups with high risk of TB are missed. Awareness of TB risk in all high-risk groups should be strengthened and screening programmes should be optimised.

Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment adherence in migrants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) is a growing concern in meeting global targets for TB control. In high-income low-TB-incidence countries, a disproportionate number of MDR-TB cases occur in migrant (foreign-born) populations, with concerns about low adherence rates in these patients compared to the host non-migrant population. Tackling MDR-TB in this context may, therefore, require unique approaches. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify and synthesise data on MDR-TB treatment adherence in migrant patients to inform evidence-based strategies to improve care pathways and health outcomes in this group. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in line with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO 42017070756). The databases Embase, MEDLINE, Global Health and PubMed were searched to 24 May 2017 for primary research reporting MDR-TB treatment adherence and outcomes in migrant populations, with no restrictions on dates or language. A meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models. RESULTS: From 413 papers identified in the database search, 15 studies reporting on MDR-TB treatment outcomes for 258 migrants and 174 non-migrants were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The estimated rate of adherence to MDR-TB treatment across migrant patients was 71% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 58-84%], with non-adherence reported among 20% (95% CI = 4-37%) of migrant patients. A key finding was that there were no differences in estimated rates of adherence [risk ratio (RR) = 1.05; 95% CI = 0.82-1.34] or non-adherence (RR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.79-1.36) between migrants and non-migrants. CONCLUSIONS: MDR-TB treatment adherence rates among migrants in high-income low-TB-incidence countries are approaching global targets for treatment success (75%), and are comparable to rates in non-migrants. The findings highlight that only just over 70% of migrant and non-migrant patients adhere to MDR-TB treatment. The results point to the importance of increasing adherence in all patient groups, including migrants, with an emphasis on tailoring care based on social risk factors for poor adherence. We believe that MDR-TB treatment targets are not ambitious enough.

Divergent approaches in the vaccination of recently arrived migrants to Europe: a survey of national experts from 32 countries, 2017.

BackgroundMigrants within the European Union and European Economic Area (EU/EEA) may be underimmunised and lack documentation on previous vaccinations. We investigated approaches to vaccination in recently arrived adult and child migrants, and guideline availability and implementation. Methods: Between March and May 2017, a national vaccination expert from every EU/EEA country and Switzerland completed an electronic questionnaire. We used descriptive analyses to calculate percentages, and framework analysis to synthesise free-text responses. Results: We approached 32 countries (response rate 100%). Although 28 experts reported vaccination guidance at national level, specific guidelines for recently arrived migrants were only available in six countries and not consistently implemented. Twenty-three countries administered vaccinations during on-arrival health checks. Most experts recommended multiple vaccination opportunities be made available: at point of entry (n = 13) or at holding level (reception centres, migrant camps, detention centres) (n = 21). In 30 countries, child migrants without evidence of previous vaccination were re-vaccinated according to the national schedule. Diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus and polio vaccinations were given to migrant children in all countries, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) in 31 countries, hepatitis B vaccination in 25. Low levels of catch-up vaccination were reported in adult migrants, with only 13 countries offering MMR and 10 countries charging fees. Conclusion: Existing guidance is often not migrant-specific and may not be applied in practice; clarification is needed on which vaccines should be given. Strategies are needed specifically for catch-up vaccination in adult migrants. Vaccinations should be offered in multiple settings, free of charge, with sufficient guidance and training provided to front-line healthcare professionals.

Scale-up of Routine Viral Load Testing in Resource-Poor Settings: Current and Future Implementation Challenges.

Despite immense progress in antiretroviral therapy (ART) scale-up, many people still lack access to basic standards of care, with our ability to meet the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS 90-90-90 treatment targets for HIV/AIDS dependent on dramatic improvements in diagnostics. The World Health Organization recommends routine monitoring of ART effectiveness using viral load (VL) testing at 6 months and every 12 months, to monitor treatment adherence and minimize failure, and will publish its VL toolkit later this year. However, the cost and complexity of VL is preventing scale-up beyond developed countries and there is a lack of awareness among clinicians as to the long-term patient benefits and its role in prolonging the longevity of treatment programs. With developments in this diagnostic field rapidly evolving-including the recent improvements for accurately using dried blood spots and the imminent appearance to the market of point-of-care technologies offering decentralized diagnosis-we describe current barriers to VL testing in resource-limited settings. Effective scale-up can be achieved through health system and laboratory system strengthening and test price reductions, as well as tackling multiple programmatic and funding challenges.

Screening for latent TB, HIV, and hepatitis B/C in new migrants in a high prevalence area of London, UK: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Rising rates of infectious diseases in international migrants has reignited the debate around screening. There have been calls to strengthen primary-care-based programmes, focusing on latent TB. We did a cross-sectional study of new migrants to test an innovative one-stop blood test approach to detect multiple infections at one appointment (HIV, latent tuberculosis, and hepatitis B/C) on registration with a General Practitioner (GP) in primary care. METHODS: The study was done across two GP practices attached to hospital Accident and Emergency Departments (A&E) in a high migrant area of London for 6 months. Inclusion criteria were foreign-born individuals from a high TB prevalence country (>40 cases per 100,000) who have lived in the UK ≤ 10 years, and were over 18 years of age. All new migrants who attended a New Patient Health Check were screened for eligibility and offered the blood test. We followed routine care pathways for follow-up. RESULTS: There were 1235 new registrations in 6 months. 453 attended their New Patient Health Check, of which 47 (10.4%) were identified as new migrants (age 32.11 years [range 18-72]; 22 different nationalities; time in UK 2.28 years [0-10]). 36 (76.6%) participated in the study. The intervention only increased the prevalence of diagnosed latent TB (18.18% [95% CI 6.98-35.46]; 181.8 cases per 1000). Ultimately 0 (0%) of 6 patients with latent TB went on to complete treatment (3 did not attend referral). No cases of HIV or hepatitis B/C were found. Foreign-born patients were under-represented at these practices in relation to 2011 Census data (Chi-square test -0.111 [95% CI -0.125 to -0.097]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The one-stop approach was feasible in this context and acceptability was high. However, the number of presenting migrants was surprisingly low, reflecting the barriers to care that this group face on arrival, and none ultimately received treatment. The ongoing UK debate around immigration checks and charging in primary care for new migrants can only have negative implications for the promotion of screening in this group. Until GP registration is more actively promoted in new migrants, a better place to test this one-stop approach could be in A&E departments where migrants may present in larger numbers.

Risk of vaccine preventable diseases in UK migrants: A serosurvey and concordance analysis.

Background: Vaccine preventable diseases (VPDs) such as measles and rubella cause significant morbidity and mortality globally every year. The World Health Organization (WHO), reported vaccine coverage for both measles and rubella to be 71 % in 2019, indicating an immunity gap. Migrants in the EU/EEA may be at high risk of VPDs due to under-immunisation and poor living conditions. However, there are limited data on VPD seroprotection rates amongst migrants living in the United Kingdom (UK). Methods: We conducted an exploratory cross-sectional serosurvey amongst a sample of adult migrants living in Leicester, UK to: (a) determine seroprotection rates for measles, varicella zoster, and rubella in this group; (b) identify risk factors associated with seronegativity and, (c) understand if self-reported vaccine or diseases history is an effective measure of seroprotection. Participants gave a blood sample and completed a questionnaire asking basic demographic details and vaccine and disease history for the three VPDs. We summarised the data using median and interquartile range (IQR) for non-parametric continuous variables and count and percentage for categorical variables. We used logistic regression to establish predictors of seroprotection against these diseases. We examined the reliability of self-reported vaccination/disease history for prediction of seroprotection through a concordance analysis. Results: 149 migrants were included in the analysis. Seroprotection rates were: varicella zoster 98 %, rubella 92.6 % and measles 89.3 %. Increasing age was associated with seroprotection (OR 1.07 95 % CI 1.01-1.13 for each year increase in age). Migrants from Africa and the Middle East (aOR 15.16 95 % CI 1.31 - 175.06) and South/East Asia and Pacific regions (aOR 15.43 95 %CI 2.38 - 100.00) are significantly more likely to be seroprotected against measles as compared to migrants from Europe and Central Asia. The proportions of migrants unsure about their vaccination and disease history combined were 53.0 % for measles; 57.7 % for rubella; 43.0 % for varicella. There was no agreement between self-reported vaccination/disease history and serostatus. Conclusion: Our findings suggest lower levels of seroprotection against measles in migrants living in Leicester, UK, with younger migrants and those from Europe and Central Asia more likely to lack seroprotection. A high proportion of surveyed migrants were unaware of their vaccination/disease history and self-reported vaccine/disease was a poor predictor of seroprotection against VPDs which is important for clinical decision-making regarding catch-up vaccination in this population. Our results, although derived from a small sample, suggest that there may be gaps in seroimmunity for certain VPDs in particular migrant populations. These findings should inform future qualitative studies investigating barriers to vaccine uptake in migrants and population-level seroprevalence studies aimed at determining individualised risk profiles based on demographic and migration factors.

Facilitators and barriers to vaccination uptake in pregnancy: A qualitative systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccination during pregnancy protects both the mother and the foetus from vaccine-preventable diseases. However, uptake of the recommended vaccines (influenza, pertussis, COVID-19) by pregnant women remains low in Europe and the USA. Understanding the reasons for this is crucial to inform strategies to increase vaccination rates in pregnant women. This qualitative systematic review aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators to vaccination against influenza, pertussis/whooping cough and COVID-19 during pregnancy and identify possible strategies to increase vaccination rates. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases, including Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, WHO database, Embase and grey literature to identify qualitative studies that explored barriers and facilitators to vaccine uptake among pregnant women (PROSPERO CRD42023399488). The search was limited to studies published between 2012 and 2022 conducted in high-income countries with established vaccination programmes during pregnancy. Studies were thematically analysed and underwent quality assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute validated critical appraisal tool for qualitative research. RESULTS: Out of 2681 articles screened, 28 studies (n = 1573 participants) were eligible for inclusion. Five overarching themes emerged relating to personal, provider and systemic factors. Barriers to vaccine uptake included concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, lack of knowledge about vaccines' benefits and necessity, fear of adverse effects on the foetus or mother and low perception of disease severity. Facilitators included recommendations from trusted healthcare providers, easy access to vaccination, clear communication on the benefits and safety of vaccination, and positive social influences from family and friends. Strategies for increasing vaccination uptake included strong and proactive vaccine recommendations by trusted healthcare professionals, provision of vaccines during routine antenatal care, and clear and consistent communication about vaccines addressing pregnant women's concerns. CONCLUSION: This review highlights the need for interventions that address the identified barriers to vaccine uptake among pregnant women. Recommendation from a healthcare provider can play a significant role in promoting vaccine uptake, as can clear risk/benefit communication and convenient access to vaccination. Addressing concerns about vaccine safety and providing accurate information about vaccines is also important.

COVID-19 vaccination coverage for half a million non-EU migrants and refugees in England.

Despite evidence suggesting that some migrants are at risk of under-immunization and have experienced severe health inequities during the pandemic, data are limited on migrants' COVID-19 vaccine coverage globally. Here we linked data from non-European Union migrants and resettled refugees to the national COVID-19 vaccination dataset in England. We estimated patterns in second and third dose delays and overdue doses between 12 December 2020 and 20 April 2022 by age, visa type and ethnicity. Of the 465,470 linked records, 91.8% (427,073/465,470) of migrants received a second dose and 51.3% (238,721/465,470) received a third. Refugees had the highest risk of delayed second (adjusted odds ratio 1.66; 95% confidence interval 1.55-1.79) and third dose (1.55; 1.43-1.69). Black migrants were twice as likely to have a second dose delayed (2.37; 2.23-2.54) than white migrants, but this trend reversed for the third dose. Older migrants (>65 years) were four times less likely to have received their second or third dose compared with the general population in England aged >65 or older. Policymakers, researchers and practitioners should work to understand and address personal and structural barriers to vaccination for diverse migrant populations.

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

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

Patient preference and acceptability of self-sampling for cervical screening in colposcopy clinic attenders: A cross-sectional semi-structured survey.

Low vaginal self-sampling has been pioneered as an important development to improve uptake of cervical screening globally. Limited research is available in specific patient groups in the UK exploring views around self-sampling to detect high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) DNA. Therefore, we explored patient views to support development of a novel point-of-care self-sampling cervical cancer screening device, by undertaking a cross-sectional semi-structured questionnaire survey to explore preferences, acceptability, barriers and facilitators around self-sampling. Patients attending a colposcopy clinic, 25-64 years old, were invited to participate after having carried out a low vaginal self-sample using a regular flocked swab. Participants self-completed an anonymous 12-point questionnaire. Quantitative data were analysed in MS Excel and Graphpad Prism, and qualitative data with Nvivo. We recruited 274 patients with a questionnaire response rate of 76%. Acceptability of self-sampling was high (95%, n = 187/197; Cronbachs-α = 0.778). Participants were asked their choice of future screening method: a) low vaginal self-sampling, b) healthcare professional collected vaginal swab, c) cervical brush sample with healthcare professional speculum examination, or d) no preference. Preferences were: a) 37% (n = 74/198), b) 19% (n = 37/198); c) 9% (n = 17/198), and d) 35% (n = 70/198), showing no single option as a strong preference. Key motivators were: Test simplicity (90%, n = 170/190), speed (81%, n = 153/190) and less pain (65%, n = 123/190). Barriers included lack of confidence taking the sample (53%, n = 10/19), resulting in preference for a healthcare professional sample (47%, n = 9/19). Whilst self-sampling showed high acceptability, lack of strong preference for screening method may reflect that respondents attending colposcopy are already engaged with screening and have differing perception of cervical cancer risk. This group appear less likely to 'switch' to self-sampling, and it may be better targeted within primary and community care, focusing on under-screened populations. Any shift in this paradigm in the UK requires comprehensive education and support for patients and providers.

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.