Suchergebnisse

Background: Migrants 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.

Rates of migration to Europe, and within Europe, have increased in recent years, with considerable implications for health systems. Migrants in Europe face a disproportionate burden of tuberculosis, HIV, and hepatitis B and C, yet experience a large number of barriers to accessing statutory health care on arrival. A better understanding of how to deliver effective and cost-effective screening, vaccination, and health services to this group is now crucial. We did a systematic review to document and assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of approaches used for infectious diseases screening, and to explore facilitators and barriers experienced by migrants to accessing screening programmes. Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched Embase, PubMed, PsychINFO, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (1989 to July 1, 2015, updated on Jan 1, 2018), with no language restrictions, and systematically approached experts across the European Union (EU) for grey literature. Inclusion criteria were primary research studies assessing screening interventions for any infectious disease in the migrant (foreign-born) population residing in EU or European Economic Area (EEA) countries. Primary outcomes were the following effectiveness indicators: uptake of screening, coverage, infections detected, and treatment outcomes. Of 4112 unique records, 47 studies met our inclusion criteria, from ten European countries (Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK) encompassing 248 402 migrants. We found that most European countries screening migrants focus on single diseases only-predominantly active or latent tuberculosis infection-and specifically target asylum seekers and refugees, with 22 studies reporting on other infections (including HIV and hepatitis B and C). An infection was detected in 3·74% (range 0·00-95·16) of migrants. Latent tuberculosis had the highest prevalence across all infections (median 15·02% [0·35-31·81]). Uptake of screening by migrants was high (median ...

BACKGROUND: Changing immigration trends pose new challenges for the UK's open access health service and there is considerable speculation that migrants from resource-poor countries place a disproportionate burden on services. Data are needed to inform provision of services to migrant groups and to ensure their access to appropriate health care. We compared sociodemographic characteristics and impact of migrant groups and UK-born patients presenting to a hospital A&E/Walk-In Centre and prior use of community-based General Practitioner (GP) services. METHODS: We administered an anonymous questionnaire survey of all presenting patients at an A&E/Walk-In Centre at an inner-city London hospital during a 1 month period. Questions related to nationality, immigration status, time in the UK, registration and use of GP services. We compared differences between groups using two-way tables by Chi-Square and Fisher's exact test. We used logistic regression modelling to quantify associations of explanatory variables and outcomes. RESULTS: 1611 of 3262 patients completed the survey (response rate 49.4%). 720 (44.7%) were overseas born, representing 87 nationalities, of whom 532 (73.9%) were new migrants to the UK (< or =10 years). Overseas born were over-represented in comparison to local estimates (44.7% vs 33.6%; p < 0.001; proportional difference 0.111 [95% CI 0.087-0.136]). Dominant immigration status' were: work permit (24.4%), EU citizens (21.5%), with only 21 (1.3%) political asylum seekers/refugees. 178 (11%) reported nationalities from refugee-generating countries (RGCs), eg, Somalia, who were less likely to speak English. Compared with RGCs, and after adjusting for age and sex, the Australians, New Zealanders, and South Africans (ANS group; OR 0.28 [95% CI 0.11 to 0.71]; p = 0.008) and the Other Migrant (OM) group comprising mainly Europeans (0.13 [0.06 to 0.30]; p = 0.000) were less likely to have GP registration and to have made prior contact with GPs, yet this did not affect mode of access to ...

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

BACKGROUND: Rates of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are rising globally and there is concern that increased migration is contributing to the burden of antibiotic resistance in Europe. However, the effect of migration on the burden of AMR in Europe has not yet been comprehensively examined. Therefore, we did a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify and synthesise data for AMR carriage or infection in migrants to Europe to examine differences in patterns of AMR across migrant groups and in different settings. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Scopus with no language restrictions from Jan 1, 2000, to Jan 18, 2017, for primary data from observational studies reporting antibacterial resistance in common bacterial pathogens among migrants to 21 European Union-15 and European Economic Area countries. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to report data on carriage or infection with laboratory-confirmed antibiotic-resistant organisms in migrant populations. We extracted data from eligible studies and assessed quality using piloted, standardised forms. We did not examine drug resistance in tuberculosis and excluded articles solely reporting on this parameter. We also excluded articles in which migrant status was determined by ethnicity, country of birth of participants' parents, or was not defined, and articles in which data were not disaggregated by migrant status. Outcomes were carriage of or infection with antibiotic-resistant organisms. We used random-effects models to calculate the pooled prevalence of each outcome. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016043681. FINDINGS: We identified 2274 articles, of which 23 observational studies reporting on antibiotic resistance in 2319 migrants were included. The pooled prevalence of any AMR carriage or AMR infection in migrants was 25·4% (95% CI 19·1-31·8; I2 =98%), including meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (7·8%, 4·8-10·7; I2 =92%) and antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (27·2%, 17·6-36·8; I2 =94%). The pooled prevalence of any AMR carriage or infection was higher in refugees and asylum seekers (33·0%, 18·3-47·6; I2 =98%) than in other migrant groups (6·6%, 1·8-11·3; I2 =92%). The pooled prevalence of antibiotic-resistant organisms was slightly higher in high-migrant community settings (33·1%, 11·1-55·1; I2 =96%) than in migrants in hospitals (24·3%, 16·1-32·6; I2 =98%). We did not find evidence of high rates of transmission of AMR from migrant to host populations. INTERPRETATION: Migrants are exposed to conditions favouring the emergence of drug resistance during transit and in host countries in Europe. Increased antibiotic resistance among refugees and asylum seekers and in high-migrant community settings (such as refugee camps and detention facilities) highlights the need for improved living conditions, access to health care, and initiatives to facilitate detection of and appropriate high-quality treatment for antibiotic-resistant infections during transit and in host countries. Protocols for the prevention and control of infection and for antibiotic surveillance need to be integrated in all aspects of health care, which should be accessible for all migrant groups, and should target determinants of AMR before, during, and after migration. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Imperial College Healthcare Charity, the Wellcome Trust, and UK National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare-associated Infections and Antimictobial Resistance at Imperial College London.

OBJECTIVE: Analysis of participatory approaches to developing health interventions for migrants and how approaches embody core participatory principles of inclusivity and democracy. DESIGN: A systematic review of original articles. Electronic searches within the databases MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health and PsychINFO (from inception-November 2020). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Original peer-reviewed articles reporting research to develop and implement a health intervention for migrants, incorporating participatory approaches. We defined migrants as foreign-born individuals. Only articles reporting the full research cycle (inception, design, implementation, analysis, evaluation, dissemination) were included. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted information related to who was involved in research (migrants or other non-academic stakeholders), the research stage at which they were involved (inception, design, implementation, analysis, evaluation, dissemination), the method of their involvement and how this aligned with the core principles of participatory research-categorising studies as exhibiting active or pseudo (including proxy and indirect) participation. RESULTS: 1793 publications were screened, of which 28 were included in our analysis. We found substantial variation in the application of participatory approaches in designing health interventions targeting migrants: across 168 individual research stages analysed across the 28 studies, we recorded 46 instances of active participation of migrants, 30 instances of proxy participation and 24 instances of indirect participation. All studies involved non-academic stakeholders in at least one stage of the research, only two studies exhibited evidence of active participation of migrants across all research stages. Evidence is limited due to the variability of terms and approaches used. CONCLUSIONS: Important shortfalls in the meaningful inclusion of migrants in developing health interventions exist, suggesting a more rigorous and standardised approach is ...

Objective Analysis of participatory approaches to developing health interventions for migrants and how approaches embody core participatory principles of inclusivity and democracy. Design A systematic review of original articles. Electronic searches within the databases MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health and PsychINFO (from inception—November 2020). Eligibility criteria for study selection Original peer-reviewed articles reporting research to develop and implement a health intervention for migrants, incorporating participatory approaches. We defined migrants as foreign-born individuals. Only articles reporting the full research cycle (inception, design, implementation, analysis, evaluation, dissemination) were included. Data extraction We extracted information related to who was involved in research (migrants or other non-academic stakeholders), the research stage at which they were involved (inception, design, implementation, analysis, evaluation, dissemination), the method of their involvement and how this aligned with the core principles of participatory research—categorising studies as exhibiting active or pseudo (including proxy and indirect) participation. Results 1793 publications were screened, of which 28 were included in our analysis. We found substantial variation in the application of participatory approaches in designing health interventions targeting migrants: across 168 individual research stages analysed across the 28 studies, we recorded 46 instances of active participation of migrants, 30 instances of proxy participation and 24 instances of indirect participation. All studies involved non-academic stakeholders in at least one stage of the research, only two studies exhibited evidence of active participation of migrants across all research stages. Evidence is limited due to the variability of terms and approaches used. Conclusions Important shortfalls in the meaningful inclusion of migrants in developing health interventions exist, suggesting a more rigorous and standardised approach is warranted to ...

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.

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

The 2015-2017 global migratory crisis saw unprecedented numbers of people on the move and tremendous diversity in terms of age, gender and medical requirements. This article focuses on key emerging public health issues around migrant populations and their interactions with host populations. Basic needs and rights of migrants and refugees are not always respected in regard to article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 23 of the Refugee Convention. These are populations with varying degrees of vulnerability and needs in terms of protection, security, rights, and access to healthcare. Their health status, initially conditioned by the situation at the point of origin, is often jeopardised by adverse conditions along migratory paths and in intermediate and final destination countries. Due to their condition, forcibly displaced migrants and refugees face a triple burden of non-communicable diseases, infectious diseases, and mental health issues. There are specific challenges regarding chronic infectious and neglected tropical diseases, for which awareness in host countries is imperative. Health risks in terms of susceptibility to, and dissemination of, infectious diseases are not unidirectional. The response, including the humanitarian effort, whose aim is to guarantee access to basic needs (food, water and sanitation, healthcare), is gripped with numerous challenges. Evaluation of current policy shows insufficiency regarding the provision of basic needs to migrant populations, even in the countries that do the most. Governments around the world need to rise to the occasion and adopt policies that guarantee universal health coverage, for migrants and refugees, as well as host populations, in accordance with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. An expert consultation was carried out in the form of a pre-conference workshop during the 4th International Conference on Prevention and Infection Control (ICPIC) in Geneva, Switzerland, on 20 June 2017, the United Nations World Refugee Day.

Migration to the European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA) affects the epidemiology of infectious diseases, including tuberculosis (TB), HIV, hepatitis B/C, and parasitic diseases. Some sub-populations of migrants are also considered to be an under-immunised group and thus at risk of vaccine-preventable diseases. Providing high-risk migrants access to timely and efficacious screening and vaccination, and understanding how best to implement more integrated screening and vaccination programmes into European health systems ensuring linkage to care and treatment, is key to improving the health of migrants and their communities, alongside meeting national and regional targets for infection surveillance, control, and elimination. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) has responded to calls to action to improve migrant health and strengthen universal health coverage by developing evidence-based guidance for policy makers, public health experts, and front-line healthcare professionals on how to approach screening and vaccination in newly arrived migrants within the EU/EEA. In this Commentary, we provide a perspective towards developing efficacious screening and vaccination of newly arrived migrants, with a focus on defining implementation challenges and evidence gaps in high-migrant receiving EU/EEA countries. There is a need now to leverage the increasing momentum around migrant health to both strengthen the evidence-base and to advocate for universal access to health care for all migrants in the EU/EEA, including undocumented migrants. This should include voluntary, confidential, and non-stigmatising screening and vaccination that should be free of charge and facilitate linkage to appropriate care and treatment.