Suchergebnisse

BACKGROUND: The United Kingdom is experiencing an increase in drug-related deaths and serious bacterial infections among its most vulnerable citizens. Cuts to essential services, coupled with a growing homeless population, create a challenging environment to tackle this public health crisis. In this paper, we highlight an underexplored environmental constraint faced by people living and injecting drugs on the streets. Access to water for injection is restricted in the UK, due to legislative and financial barriers. Austerity measures, such as public toilet closures, further restrict the ability of people made homeless to access clean water and protect themselves from health harms. METHODS: We generated questionnaire (n = 455) and in-depth qualitative interview (n = 32) data with people who inject drugs in London for the Care and Prevent study. Participants provided detail on their life history; drug use, injecting and living environments; health conditions and care seeking practices. FINDINGS: A high proportion of the survey sample reported lifetime history of street homelessness (78%), bacterial infections (65%) and related hospitalisation (30%). Qualitative accounts highlight unsafe, potentially dangerous, injection practices in semi-public spaces. Multiple constraints to sourcing sterile water for injection preparation were reported. Alternatives to sterile water included puddle water, toilet cistern water, whisky, cola soda and saliva. Participants who injected heroin and crack cocaine together unanimously reported adding water at two stages during injection preparation: first, adding water as a vehicle for heroin (which was then heated); second, adding cold water to the heroin mixture prior to adding the crack cocaine. This new finding of a stage addition of solvent may represent an additional risk of infection. CONCLUSION: Currently, harm reduction equipment and resources for safe injecting are not meeting the needs of people who inject drugs who are street homeless or unstably housed. Preparation of injections with non-sterile water sources could precipitate bacterial and fungal infections, particularly when used without the application of heat. It is crucial that water for injection, also skin cleaning, is made available for the unstably housed and that harm reduction messaging is tailored to speak to the everyday realities of people who prepare and inject drugs in public spaces.

BackgroundThe United Kingdom is experiencing an increase in drug-related deaths and serious bacterial infections among its most vulnerable citizens. Cuts to essential services, coupled with a growing homeless population, create a challenging environment to tackle this public health crisis. In this paper, we highlight an underexplored environmental constraint faced by people living and injecting drugs on the streets. Access to water for injection is restricted in the UK, due to legislative and financial barriers. Austerity measures, such as public toilet closures, further restrict the ability of people made homeless to access clean water and protect themselves from health harms.MethodsWe generated questionnaire (n = 455) and in-depth qualitative interview (n = 32) data with people who inject drugs in London for the Care and Prevent study. Participants provided detail on their life history; drug use, injecting and living environments; health conditions and care seeking practices.FindingsA high proportion of the survey sample reported lifetime history of street homelessness (78%), bacterial infections (65%) and related hospitalisation (30%). Qualitative accounts highlight unsafe, potentially dangerous, injection practices in semi-public spaces. Multiple constraints to sourcing sterile water for injection preparation were reported. Alternatives to sterile water included puddle water, toilet cistern water, whisky, cola soda and saliva. Participants who injected heroin and crack cocaine together unanimously reported adding water at two stages during injection preparation: first, adding water as a vehicle for heroin (which was then heated); second, adding cold water to the heroin mixture prior to adding the crack cocaine. This new finding of a stage addition of solvent may represent an additional risk of infection.ConclusionCurrently, harm reduction equipment and resources for safe injecting are not meeting the needs of people who inject drugs who are street homeless or unstably housed. Preparation of injections with non-sterile water sources could precipitate bacterial and fungal infections, particularly when used without the application of heat. It is crucial that water for injection, also skin cleaning, is made available for the unstably housed and that harm reduction messaging is tailored to speak to the everyday realities of people who prepare and inject drugs in public spaces.

Abstract
Facility-based sentinel testing for COVID-19 was implemented in May 2020 to monitor the prevalence of COVID-19 amongst the Rohingya and host community in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh. In response both to low uptake of testing across all camps, and rumours of an outbreak of an influenza-like illness in May/June 2020, the International Organization for Migration (in partnership with ACAPS) undertook a qualitative study to collect accounts from the Rohingya relating to testing and treatment, and to explore the possibility that what was thought to be an outbreak of influenza may have been COVID-19. The report provided rich descriptions of the apprehension around testing and offered some clear recommendations for addressing these. We developed a testing 'script' in response to these recommendations, deploying it alongside a survey to determine reasons for declining a test. We compared testing uptake before deploying the testing script, and after (controlling for the total number of consultations), to generate a crude measure of the impact of the script on testing uptake. We coded reasons for declining a test thematically, disaggregated by status (Rohingya and host community) and sex. Despite the small sample size our results suggest an increase in testing uptake following the implementation of the script. Reasons provided by patients for declining a test included: 1) fear, 2) the belief that COVID-19 does not exist, that Allah will prevent them from contracting it, or that their symptoms are not caused by COVID-19, 3) no permission from husband/family, and 4) a preference to return at a later time for a test. Our findings largely mirror the qualitative accounts in the International Organization for Migration/ACAPS report and suggest that further testing amongst both populations will be complicated by fear, and a lack of clarity around testing. Our data lend force to the recommendations in the International Organization for Migration/ACAPS report and emphasise that contextual factors play a key role and must be considered in designing and implementing a health response to a novel disease.

AbstractInfectious disease outbreaks represent potentially catastrophic threats to those affected by humanitarian crises. High transmissibility, crowded living conditions, widespread co-morbidities, and a lack of intensive care capacity may amplify the effects of the outbreak on already vulnerable populations and present humanitarian actors with intense ethical problems. We argue that there are significant and troubling gaps in ethical awareness at the level of humanitarian praxis. Though some ethical guidance does exist most of it is directed at public health experts and fails to speak to the day-to-day ethical challenges confronted by frontline humanitarians. In responding to infectious disease outbreaks humanitarian workers are likely to grapple with complex dilemmas opening the door to moral distress and burnout.

Abstract
Background
Despite the widespread reliance on mobile clinics for delivering health services in humanitarian emergencies there is little empirical evidence to support their use. We report a narrative systematic review of the empirical evidence evaluating the use of mobile clinics in humanitarian settings.

Methods
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, Health Management Information Consortium, and The Cochrane Library for manuscripts published between 2000 and 2019. We also conducted a grey literature search via Global Health, Open Grey, and the WHO publication database. Empirical studies were included if they reported on at least one of the following evaluation criteria: relevance/appropriateness, connectedness, coherence, coverage, efficiency, effectiveness, and impact.

Findings
Five studies met the inclusion criteria: all supported the use of mobile clinics in the particular setting under study. Three studies included controls. Two studies were assessed as good quality. The studies reported on mobile clinics providing non-communicable disease interventions, mental health services, sexual and reproductive health services, and multiple primary health care services in Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo , Haiti, and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Studies assessed one or more of the following evaluation domains: relevance/appropriateness, coverage, efficiency, and effectiveness. Four studies made recommendations including: i) ensure that mobile clinics are designed to complement clinic-based services; ii) improve technological tools to support patient follow-up, improve record-keeping, communication, and coordination; iii) avoid labelling services in a way that might stigmatise attendees; iv) strengthen referral to psychosocial and mental health services; v) partner with local providers to leverage resources; and vi) ensure strong coordination to optimise the continuum of care. Recommendations regarding the evaluation of mobile clinics include carrying out comparative studies of various modalities (including fixed facilities and community health workers) in order to isolate the effects of the mobile clinics. In the absence of a sound evidence base informing the use of mobile clinics in humanitarian crises, we encourage the integration of: i) WASH services, ii) nutrition services, iii) epidemic surveillance, and iv) systems to ensure the quality and safety of patient care. We recommend that future evaluations report against an established evaluation framework.

Conclusion
Evidence supporting the use of mobile clinics in humanitarian emergencies is limited. We encourage more studies of the use of mobile clinics in emergency settings.

Funding
Salary support for this review was provided under the RECAP project by United Kingdom Research and Innovation as part of the Global Challenges Research Fund, grant number ES/P010873/1.

Background: Despite the widespread reliance on mobile clinics for delivering health services in humanitarian emergencies there is little empirical evidence to support their use. We report a narrative systematic review of the empirical evidence evaluating the use of mobile clinics in humanitarian settings. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, Health Management Information Consortium, and The Cochrane Library for manuscripts published between 2000 and 2019. We also conducted a grey literature search via Global Health, Open Grey, and the WHO publication database. Empirical studies were included if they reported on at least one of the following evaluation criteria: relevance/appropriateness, connectedness, coherence, coverage, efficiency, effectiveness, and impact. Findings: Five studies met the inclusion criteria: all supported the use of mobile clinics in the particular setting under study. Three studies included controls. Two studies were assessed as good quality. The studies reported on mobile clinics providing non-communicable disease interventions, mental health services, sexual and reproductive health services, and multiple primary health care services in Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo , Haiti, and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Studies assessed one or more of the following evaluation domains: relevance/appropriateness, coverage, efficiency, and effectiveness. Four studies made recommendations including: i) ensure that mobile clinics are designed to complement clinic-based services; ii) improve technological tools to support patient follow-up, improve record-keeping, communication, and coordination; iii) avoid labelling services in a way that might stigmatise attendees; iv) strengthen referral to psychosocial and mental health services; v) partner with local providers to leverage resources; and vi) ensure strong coordination to optimise the continuum of care. Recommendations regarding the evaluation of mobile clinics include carrying out comparative studies of various modalities (including fixed facilities and community health workers) in order to isolate the effects of the mobile clinics. In the absence of a sound evidence base informing the use of mobile clinics in humanitarian crises, we encourage the integration of: i) WASH services, ii) nutrition services, iii) epidemic surveillance, and iv) systems to ensure the quality and safety of patient care. We recommend that future evaluations report against an established evaluation framework. Conclusion: Evidence supporting the use of mobile clinics in humanitarian emergencies is limited. We encourage more studies of the use of mobile clinics in emergency settings. Funding: Salary support for this review was provided under the RECAP project by United Kingdom Research and Innovation as part of the Global Challenges Research Fund, grant number ES/P010873/1.

Abstract
Background
The ongoing war in Yemen has created a severe and protracted crisis that has left nearly three-quarters of the population in need of urgent humanitarian assistance. Despite eight years of conflict there exist few robust estimates of how the conflict (and the conflict combined with the COVID-19 pandemic) have affected mortality in Yemen. As the security situation has limited access to affected populations we have designed a novel alternative to local mortality surveys.

Methods
We used a web-based, respondent-driven sampling method to disseminate a mortality survey amongst the global Yemeni diaspora. We used Cox proportional hazards survival models to estimate the association between the exposure (i.e. between the pre-conflict, conflict, and conflict/pandemic periods) and mortality risk, adjusted for gender and birth cohort.

Results
Eighty-nine eligible respondents completed the survey. Respondents provided data on the status of 1704 individuals of whom 85 (5%) had died; of these 65 (3.8%) were reported to have died in Yemen. An analysis of survivorship of respondents' parents after their 50th birthday (adjusted for gender and birth cohort) provided weak evidence that the war and pandemic periods were associated with higher mortality when compared to the pre-war period. Analysis of the subset of individuals who died in Yemen also suggested an increased, but non-significant hazard of dying during the war/pandemic period: this association tended towards significance when allowing for varying degrees of out-migration from Yemen across the cohort. The number of deaths amongst respondents' siblings and children under five in Yemen were too low to allow meaningful analysis.

Conclusions
Our data suggest increased mortality during the war/pandemic period, compared to the pre-war period, among older Yemeni adults. However, our findings require careful interpretation as our study design cannot establish causation, and as our small and non-representative sample appeared skewed towards higher-income, urban communities. Surveys of diaspora populations offer a promising means of describing mortality patterns in crisis-affected populations; though, large numbers of respondents are likely required to achieve accurate mortality estimates and to adjust for selection bias.

Abstract
Background
A patient charter is an explicit declaration of the rights of patients within a particular health care setting. In early 2020 the Save the Children Emergency Health Unit deployed to Cox's Bazar Bangladesh to support the establishment of a severe acute respiratory infection isolation and treatment centre as part of the COVID-19 response. We developed a charter of patient rights and had it translated into Bangla and Burmese; however, the charter remained inaccessible to Rohingya and members of the host community with low literacy.

Methods
To both visualise and contextualise the patient charter we undertook a graphic elicitation method involving both the Rohingya and host communities. We carried out two focus group discussions during which we discussed the charter and agreed how best to illustrate the individual rights contained therein.

Results
Logistical constraints and infection prevention and control procedures limited our ability to follow up with the original focus group participants and to engage in back-translation as we had planned; however, we were able to elicit rich descriptions of each right. Reflecting on our method we were able to identify several key learnings relating to: 1) our technique for eliciting feedback on the charter verbatim versus a broader discussion of concepts referenced within each right, 2) our decision to include both men and women in the same focus group, 3) our decision to ask focus group participants to describe specific features of each illustration and how this benefited the inclusivity of our illustrations, and 4) the potential of the focus groups to act as a means to introduce the charter to communities.

Conclusions
Though executing our method was operationally challenging we were able to create culturally appropriate illustrations to accompany our patient charter. In contexts of limited literacy it is possible to enable access to critical clinical governance and accountability tools.

AbstractBackgroundHIV incidence among women of reproductive age and vertical HIV transmission rates remain high in Latin America. We, therefore, quantified HIV care continuum barriers and outcomes among pregnant women living with HIV (WLWH) in Latin America.MethodsWLWH (aged ≥16 years) enrolling at Caribbean, Central and South America network for HIV epidemiology (CCASAnet) sites from 2000 to 2017 who had HIV diagnosis, pregnancy and delivery dates contributed. Logistic regression produced adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for retention in care (≥2 visits ≥3 months apart) and virological suppression (viral load <200 copies/mL) 12 months after pregnancy outcome. Cumulative incidences of loss to follow‐up (LTFU) postpartum were estimated using Cox regression. Evidence of HIV status at pregnancy confirmation was the exposure. Covariates included pregnancy outcome (born alive vs. others); AIDS diagnosis prior to delivery; CD4, age, HIV‐1 RNA and cART regimen at first delivery and CCASAnet country.ResultsAmong 579 WLWH, median postpartum follow‐up was 4.34 years (IQR 1.91, 7.35); 459 (79%) were HIV‐diagnosed before pregnancy confirmation, 445 (77%) retained in care and 259 (45%) virologically suppressed at 12 months of postpartum. Cumulative incidence of LTFU was 21% by 12 months and 40% by five years postpartum. Those HIV‐diagnosed during pregnancy had lower odds of retention (aOR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.97) and virological suppression (aOR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.82) versus those HIV‐diagnosed before.ConclusionHIV diagnosis during pregnancy was associated with poorer 12‐month retention and virological suppression. Young women should be tested and linked to HIV care earlier to narrow these disparities.

AbstractIntroductionAs integrase inhibitors become available in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs), they offer the potential to expand extremely limited treatment options available to children and adolescents. In LMICs, only small numbers have used raltegravir, primarily as part of third‐line regimens. Using data from the IeDEA global consortium, we aimed to describe the characteristics of children on raltegravir‐containing regimens and their outcomes.MethodsWe included data from 1994 to 2017 from children (age <18 years), from East and Southern Africa, Asia and South America, who received cART regimens containing raltegravir for ≥90 days. We describe their characteristics at raltegravir start, and their immunological and virological outcomes.Results and discussionIn total, 62 children were included, with median age at raltegravir initiation of 14.3 years (IQR 11.2 to 15.8) and median CD4 count of 276 cells/µL (IQR 68 to 494). Among 40 (65%) with drug resistance testing prior to raltegravir, 71% were resistant to at least one protease inhibitor (PI), and 32% had high‐level resistance to at least one drug class. Most (n = 50; 81%) received raltegravir as part of third‐line cART following PI‐based regimens, and were on regimens containing four or more drugs (n = 47, 76%).By database closure, median duration on raltegravir was 2.0 years (IQR 0.8 to 3.0), 1 (1.6%) patient had died, 6 (9.7%) were lost to follow‐up and 21 (34%) had discontinued raltegravir. Among 15 patients reporting reasons for stopping raltegravir, six discontinued because it was no longer available. Within one year of starting raltegravir, among 53 patients with VL measures, 40 (75%) had VL < 1000 copies/mL, and among 54 with a reported CD4 count, 45 (83%) and 36 (67%) were ≥350 and ≥500 cells/µL, respectively, with median CD4 count increasing to 517.5 cells/µL (IQR 288 to 810).ConclusionsAmong children in LMICs, the initial use of raltegravir has been primarily for post PI‐based cART. We found good virological and immunological outcomes despite frequent prior triple‐class failure and high levels of drug resistance. Both access to raltegravir and long‐term adherence to regimens with large pill‐burdens remain challenging. Policies which promote earlier access to new drugs and simplify daily regimens for children and adolescents in LMICs are needed.

AbstractIntroductionThe "greying" of the HIV epidemic necessitates a better understanding of the healthcare needs of older HIV‐positive adults. As these individuals age, it is unclear whether comorbidities and their associated therapies or the ageing process itself alter the response to antiretroviral therapy (ART). In this study, HIV treatment outcomes and corresponding risk factors were compared between older ART initiators and those who were younger using data from the Caribbean, Central and South America Network for HIV Epidemiology (CCASAnet).MethodsHIV‐positive adults (≥18 years) initiating ART at nine sites in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico and Peru were included. Patients were classified as older (≥50 years) or younger (<50 years) based on age at ART initiation. ART effectiveness was measured using three outcomes: death, virologic failure and ART treatment modification. Cox regression models for each outcome compared risk between older and younger patients, adjusting for other covariates.ResultsAmong 26,311 patients initiating ART between 1996 and 2016, 3389 (13%) were ≥50 years. The majority of patients in both ≥50 and <50 age groups received a non‐nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor‐based regimen (89% vs. 87%), did not have AIDS at baseline (63% vs. 62%), and were male (59% vs. 58%). Older patients had a higher risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.64; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.48 to 1.83) and a lower risk of virologic failure (aHR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.63 to 0.84). There was no difference in risk of ART modification (aHR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.06). Risk factors for death, virologic failure and treatment modification were similar for each group.ConclusionsOlder age at ART initiation was associated with increased mortality and decreased risk of virologic failure in our cohort of more than 26,000 ART initiators in Latin America and the Caribbean. To the best of our knowledge this is the first study from the region to evaluate ART outcomes in this growing and important population. Given the complexity of issues related to ageing with HIV, a greater understanding is needed in order to properly respond to this shifting epidemic.

IntroductionWe assessed trends in HIV Care Continuum outcomes associated with delayed disease progression and reduced transmission within a large Latin American cohort over a decade: clinical retention, combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) use and viral suppression (VS).MethodsAdults from Caribbean, Central and South America network for HIV epidemiology clinical cohorts in seven countries contributed data between 2003 and 2012. Retention was defined as two or more HIV care visits annually, >90 days apart. cART was defined as prescription of three or more antiretroviral agents annually. VS was defined as HIV‐1 RNA <200 copies/mL at last measurement annually. cART and VS denominators were subjects with at least one visit annually. Multivariable modified Poisson regression was used to assess temporal trends and examine associations between age, sex, HIV transmission mode, cohort, calendar year and time in care.ResultsAmong 18,799 individuals in retention analyses, 14,380 in cART analyses and 13,330 in VS analyses, differences existed between those meeting indicator definitions versus those not by most characteristics. Retention, cART and VS significantly improved from 2003 to 2012 (63 to 77%, 74 to 91% and 53 to 82%, respectively; p<0.05, each). Female sex (risk ratio (RR)=0.97 vs. males) and injection drug use as HIV transmission mode (RR=0.83 vs. male sexual contact with males (MSM)) were significantly associated with lower retention, but unrelated with cART or VS. MSM (RR=0.96) significantly decreased the probability of cART compared with heterosexual transmission.ConclusionsHIV Care Continuum outcomes improved over time in Latin America, though disparities for vulnerable groups remain. Efforts must be made to increase retention, cART and VS, while engaging in additional research to sustain progress in these settings.