Search results

OBJECTIF: Guider les médecins de famille de divers types de pratique familiale quant à la façon de dispenser des soins et du soutien aux patients logés précairement ou qui vivent l'itinérance. SOURCES D'INFORMATION: L'approche intègre les recommandations tirées des lignes directrices cliniques fondées sur les données probantes, l'opinion des personnes avec une expérience vécue de l'itinérance, les principes théoriques du cadre de travail du Centre de médecine de famille et des leçons pratiques provenant de médecins de famille qui travaillent dans des contextes cliniques variés. MESSAGE PRINCIPAL: Les médecins de famille peuvent utiliser des approches simples et efficaces pour identifier les patients itinérants ou logés précairement; franchir les premières étapes pour faciliter l'accès au logement, à l'aide financière, à la gestion de cas et au traitement de la toxicomanie; et collaborer en faisant appel à des approches anti-oppressives et qui tiennent compte des traumatismes pour mieux venir en aide aux personnes qui ont des besoins sur les plans social et sanitaire. Les médecins de famille ont un solide pouvoir de plaidoyer et peuvent s'associer aux organisations communautaires locales et aux personnes ayant vécu l'itinérance pour revendiquer des réformes politiques qui tiennent compte des iniquités sociales. CONCLUSION: Les médecins de famille ont la capacité de répondre directement aux besoins sociaux et aux besoins en matière de santé physique et de santé mentale des patients itinérants ou logés précairement. En outre, ils peuvent promouvoir les programmes d'approche et d'intégration qui aident les personnes avec une expérience vécue de l'itinérance à accéder aux centres de médecine de famille et peuvent militer pour l'adoption de mesures générales visant à contrer les causes structurelles sous-jacentes de l'itinérance.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic. Governments have implemented combinations of "lockdown" measures of various stringencies, including school and workplace closures, cancellations of public events, and restrictions on internal and external movements. These policy interventions are an attempt to shield high-risk individuals and to prevent overwhelming countries' healthcare systems, or, colloquially, "flatten the curve." However, these policy interventions may come with physical and psychological health harms, group and social harms, and opportunity costs. These policies may particularly affect vulnerable populations and not only exacerbate pre-existing inequities but also generate new ones. METHODS: We developed a conceptual framework to identify and categorize adverse effects of COVID-19 lockdown measures. We based our framework on Lorenc and Oliver's framework for the adverse effects of public health interventions and the PROGRESS-Plus equity framework. To test its application, we purposively sampled COVID-19 policy examples from around the world and evaluated them for the potential physical, psychological, and social harms, as well as opportunity costs, in each of the PROGRESS-Plus equity domains: Place of residence, Race/ethnicity, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital, Plus (age, and disability). RESULTS: We found examples of inequitably distributed adverse effects for each COVID-19 lockdown policy example, stratified by a low- or middle-income country and high-income country, in every PROGRESS-Plus equity domain. We identified the known policy interventions intended to mitigate some of these adverse effects. The same harms (anxiety, depression, food insecurity, loneliness, stigma, violence) appear to be repeated across many groups and are exacerbated by several COVID-19 policy interventions. CONCLUSION: Our conceptual framework highlights the fact that COVID-19 policy interventions can generate or exacerbate interactive and multiplicative equity harms. Applying this framework can help in three ways: (1) identifying the areas where a policy intervention may generate inequitable adverse effects; (2) mitigating the policy and practice interventions by facilitating the systematic examination of relevant evidence; and (3) planning for lifting COVID-19 lockdowns and policy interventions around the world.

AbstractIntroductionHealth equity is a moral and ethical imperative for clinicians, researchers, policymakers, and all who use health research. Both Cochrane and the Campbell Collaboration have focused on health equity for many years.MethodsThe new Equity Group will continue and expand this work by designing a program of projects aiming to (1) promote equity in the evidence base, (2) ensure equitable processes for stakeholder engagement, (3) produce high‐priority, equity‐focused evidence syntheses, (4) build capacity for equity design, analysis, and reporting, and (5) promote equity in implementation tools.ResultsWe will build on our current network of collaborators and create a group structure striving to recruit across the PROGRESS‐Plus characteristics.ConclusionWe invite readers to join our cause and contribute wherever they are able. Together, we can help Cochrane achieve its social responsibility of improving health equity at a planetary level.

Chronic hepatitis C (HCV) is a public health priority in the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) and is a leading cause of chronic liver disease and liver cancer. Migrants account for a disproportionate number of HCV cases in the EU/EEA (mean 14% of cases and >50% of cases in some countries). We conducted two systematic reviews (SR) to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HCV screening for migrants living in the EU/EEA. We found that screening tests for HCV are highly sensitive and specific. Clinical trials report direct acting antiviral (DAA) therapies are well-tolerated in a wide range of populations and cure almost all cases (>95%) and lead to an 85% lower risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma and an 80% lower risk of all-cause mortality. At 2015 costs, DAA based regimens were only moderately cost-effective and as a result less than 30% of people with HCV had been screened and less 5% of all HCV cases had been treated in the EU/EEA in 2015. Migrants face additional barriers in linkage to care and treatment due to several patient, practitioner, and health system barriers. Although decreasing HCV costs have made treatment more accessible in the EU/EEA, HCV elimination will only be possible in the region if health systems include and treat migrants for HCV.

We aimed to evaluate the evidence on screening and treatment for two parasitic infections—schistosomiasis and strongyloidiasis—among migrants from endemic countries arriving in the European Union and European Economic Area (EU/EEA). We conducted a systematic search of multiple databases to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 1 January 1993 and 30 May 2016 presenting evidence on diagnostic and treatment efficacy and cost-effectiveness. We conducted additional systematic search for individual studies published between 2010 and 2017. We assessed the methodological quality of reviews and studies using the AMSTAR, Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and QUADAS-II tools. Study synthesis and assessment of the certainty of the evidence was performed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. We included 28 systematic reviews and individual studies in this review. The GRADE certainty of evidence was low for the effectiveness of screening techniques and moderate to high for treatment efficacy. Antibody-detecting serological tests are the most effective screening tests for detection of both schistosomiasis and strongyloidiasis in low-endemicity settings, because they have higher sensitivity than conventional parasitological methods. Short courses of praziquantel and ivermectin were safe and highly effective and cost-effective in treating schistosomiasis and strongyloidiasis, respectively. Economic modelling suggests presumptive single-dose treatment of strongyloidiasis with ivermectin for all migrants is likely cost-effective, but feasibility of this strategy has yet to be demonstrated in clinical studies. The evidence supports screening and treatment for schistosomiasis and strongyloidiasis in migrants from endemic countries, to reduce morbidity and mortality.

We aimed to evaluate the evidence on screening and treatment for two parasitic infections-schistosomiasis and strongyloidiasis-among migrants from endemic countries arriving in the European Union and European Economic Area (EU/EEA). We conducted a systematic search of multiple databases to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 1 January 1993 and 30 May 2016 presenting evidence on diagnostic and treatment efficacy and cost-effectiveness. We conducted additional systematic search for individual studies published between 2010 and 2017. We assessed the methodological quality of reviews and studies using the AMSTAR, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and QUADAS-II tools. Study synthesis and assessment of the certainty of the evidence was performed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. We included 28 systematic reviews and individual studies in this review. The GRADE certainty of evidence was low for the effectiveness of screening techniques and moderate to high for treatment efficacy. Antibody-detecting serological tests are the most effective screening tests for detection of both schistosomiasis and strongyloidiasis in low-endemicity settings, because they have higher sensitivity than conventional parasitological methods. Short courses of praziquantel and ivermectin were safe and highly effective and cost-effective in treating schistosomiasis and strongyloidiasis, respectively. Economic modelling suggests presumptive single-dose treatment of strongyloidiasis with ivermectin for all migrants is likely cost-effective, but feasibility of this strategy has yet to be demonstrated in clinical studies. The evidence supports screening and treatment for schistosomiasis and strongyloidiasis in migrants from endemic countries, to reduce morbidity and mortality.

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.