Search

Background: Migrants to the UK face disproportionate risk of infections, non-communicable diseases, and under-immunisation compounded by healthcare access barriers. Current UK migrant screening strategies are unstandardised with poor implementation and low uptake. Health Catch-UP! is a collaboratively produced digital clinical decision support system that applies current guidelines (UKHSA and NICE) to provide primary care professionals with individualised multi-disease screening (7 infectious diseases/blood-borne viruses, 3 chronic parasitic infections, 3 non-communicable disease or risk factors) and catch-up vaccination prompts for migrant patients., Methods: We carried out a mixed-methods process evaluation of Health Catch-UP! in two urban primary healthcare practices to integrate Health Catch-UP! into the electronic health record system of primary care, using the Medical Research Council framework for complex intervention evaluation. We collected quantitative data (demographics, patients screened, disease detection and catch-up vaccination rates) and qualitative participant interviews to explore acceptability and feasibility., Results: Ninety-nine migrants were assessed by Health Catch-UP! across two sites (S1, S2). 96.0% (n = 97) had complete demographics coding with Asia 31.3% (n = 31) and Africa 25.2% (n = 25), the most common continents of birth (S1 n = 92 [48.9% female (n = 44); mean age 60.6 years (SD 14.26)]; and S2 n = 7 [85.7% male (n = 6); mean age 39.4 years (SD16.97)]. 61.6% (n = 61) of participants were eligible for screening for at least one condition and uptake of screening was high 86.9% (n = 53). Twelve new conditions were identified (12.1% of study population) including hepatitis C (n = 1), hypercholesteraemia (n = 6), pre-diabetes (n = 4), and diabetes (n = 1). Health Catch-UP! identified that 100% (n = 99) of patients had no immunisations recorded; however, subsequent catch-up vaccination uptake was poor (2.0%, n = 1). Qualitative data supported acceptability and feasibility of Health Catch-UP! from staff and patient perspectives, and recommended Health Catch-UP! integration into routine care (e.g. NHS health checks) with an implementation package including staff and patient support materials, standardised care pathways (screening and catch-up vaccination, laboratory, and management), and financial incentivisation., Conclusions: Clinical Decision Support Systems like Health Catch-UP! can improve disease detection and implementation of screening guidance for migrant patients but require robust testing, resourcing, and an effective implementation package to support both patients and staff., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Sally Hargreaves, Alison Crawshaw reports financial support was provided by National Institute of Health Research (NIHR). Anna Deal, Sally Hayward reports financial support was provided by UKRI Medical Research Council. Sally Hargreaves reports financial support was provided by Academy of Medical Sciences. Sandra Mounier-Jack reports financial support was provided by National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Vaccines and Immunisation. Azeem Majeed reports financial support was provided by NIHR Applied Research Collaboration NW London. Azeem Majeed reports financial support was provided by NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. Oumnia Bouaddi reports financial support was provided by La Caixa., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier India Pvt Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Artificial intelligence (AI) could have the potential to accurately classify mammograms according to the presence or absence of radiological signs of breast cancer, replacing or supplementing human readers (radiologists). The UK National Screening Committee's assessments of the use of AI systems to examine screening mammograms continues to focus on maximising benefits and minimising harms to women screened, when deciding whether to recommend the implementation of AI into the Breast Screening Programme in the UK. Maintaining or improving programme specificity is important to minimise anxiety from false positive results. When considering cancer detection, AI test sensitivity alone is not sufficiently informative, and additional information on the spectrum of disease detected and interval cancers is crucial to better understand the benefits and harms of screening. Although large retrospective studies might provide useful evidence by directly comparing test accuracy and spectrum of disease detected between different AI systems and by population subgroup, most retrospective studies are biased due to differential verification (ie, the use of different reference standards to verify the target condition among study participants). Enriched, multiple-reader, multiple-case, test set laboratory studies are also biased due to the laboratory effect (ie, radiologists' performance in retrospective, laboratory, observer studies is substantially different to their performance in a clinical environment). Therefore, assessment of the effect of incorporating any AI system into the breast screening pathway in prospective studies is required as it will provide key evidence for the effect of the interaction of medical staff with AI, and the impact on women's outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests This Health Policy paper was sent to all members of the UK NSC and the AI Task Group of the UK NSC for comment, before submission. BG is a part-time employee of HeartFlow and Kheiron Medical Technologies and holds stock options as part of the standard compensation package for both companies. BG had an advisory role with stock options for Khieron Medical Technologies (from January, 2018, to September, 2021). BG was a Visiting Researcher and part-time employee of Microsoft Research until May, 2021. BG has received grants from Innovate UK, the EU Commission, and jointly from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) and the Medical Research Council. Kheiron Medical Technologies currently has a breast screening AI product available. As such, BG contributed to the text as an expert in AI, focusing on the accuracy of the technical descriptions of the AI method. BG did not comment on or suggest changes to the described requirements of evidence. LW declares that she is a member of the Optimam Steering Group, a collaboration between research scientists at the University of Surrey and Cancer Research UK, which, among other activities, is collating a database of mammography images to be used for research and assessment of AI. AM, JM, GK, and FS declare that they are employed by the UK NSC. SH is Chair of the AI Task Group of the UK NSC. RG-W is Chair of the Adult Reference Group of the UK NSC. RJS was the Chair of the UK NSC at the time of writing this paper. ST-P has previously received funds from the UK NSC to undertake evidence reviews for the UK NSC, including for Breast AI, and is a member of the Adult Reference Group and AI Task Group of the UK NSC. The opinions are those of the authors and not the NIHR, the NHS, or the Department of Health and Social Care. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To assess the cost-effectiveness of universal repeat screening for syphilis in late pregnancy, compared with the current strategy of single screening in early pregnancy with repeat screening offered only to high-risk women., Design: A decision tree model was developed to assess the incremental costs and health benefits of the two screening strategies. The base case analysis considered short-term costs during the pregnancy and the initial weeks after delivery. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results., Setting: UK antenatal screening programme., Population: Hypothetical cohort of pregnant women who access antenatal care and receive a syphilis screen in 1 year., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the cost to avoid one case of congenital syphilis (CS). Secondary outcomes were the cost to avoid one case of intrauterine fetal demise (IUFD) or neonatal death and the number of women needing to be screened/treated to avoid one case of CS, IUFD or neonatal death. The cost per quality-adjusted life year gained was assessed in scenario analyses., Results: Base case results indicated that for pregnant women in the UK (n=725 891), the repeat screening strategy would result in 5.5 fewer cases of CS (from 8.8 to 3.3), 0.1 fewer cases of neonatal death and 0.3 fewer cases of IUFD annually compared with the single screening strategy. This equates to an additional £1.8 million per case of CS prevented. When lifetime horizon was considered, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the repeat screening strategy was £120 494., Conclusions: Universal repeat screening for syphilis in pregnancy is unlikely to be cost-effective in the current UK setting where syphilis prevalence is low. Repeat screening may be cost-effective in countries with a higher syphilis incidence in pregnancy, particularly if the cost per screen is low., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SH, GW and EA work at Aquarius Population Health and have received consultancy fees from the following companies on projects related to STIs: Abbott, Cepheid, Binx Health, Hologic and St. Georges University of London. IA, KT and MT were funded as consultants on the project through Aquarius Population Health. MT has received support from Cepheid for conference attendance. KT is in receipt of funding to University of Bristol from GlaxoSmithKline for work unrelated to this work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)