This reflective article was drafted in November 2020. Since this time, the authors have worked with the counter-slavery sector to co-develop a refined public health framework to address modern slavery (Such et al, 2021). Significant knowledge mobilisation has also occurred with a range of stakeholders, and the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner has encouraged the UK Home Office and the Home Secretary to embed a public health approach within the UK's response to modern slavery (IASC/Home Secretary, 2021). Key references and insights from research in 2021 are available as a collection.
AIM: To explore healthcare providers' perceptions and experiences of the implications of a patient data-sharing agreement between National Health Service (NHS) Digital and the Home Office on access to NHS services and quality of care received by migrant patients in England. DESIGN: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews, thematic analysis and constant-comparison approach. PARTICIPANTS: Eleven healthcare providers and one non-clinical volunteer working in community or hospital-based settings who had experience of migrants accessing NHS England services. Interviews were carried out in 2018. SETTING: England. RESULTS: Awareness and understanding of the patient data-sharing agreement varied among participants, who associated this with a perceived lack of transparency by the government. Participants provided insight into how they thought the data-sharing agreement was negatively influencing migrants' health-seeking behaviour, their relationship with clinicians and the safety and quality of their care. They referred to the policy as a challenge to their core ethical principles, explicitly patient confidentiality and trust, which varied depending on their clinical specialty. CONCLUSIONS: A perceived lack of transparency during the policy development process can result in suspicion or mistrust towards government among the health workforce, patients and public, which is underpinned by a notion of power or control. The patient data-sharing agreement was considered a threat to some of the core principles of the NHS and its implementation as adversely affecting healthcare access and patient safety. Future policy development should involve a range of stakeholders including civil society, healthcare professionals and ethicists, and include more meaningful assessments of the impact on healthcare and public health.
Since 2015, the UK has resettled over 25,000 refugees. To support resettlement and integration, refugees undergo a pre-arrival medical health assessment (MHA), which is used for healthcare planning by local government in England. This study aimed to understand the utility and effectiveness of the MHA and flow of data to support resettlement planning. Seven local government representatives were interviewed regarding their experiences and perceptions of the refugee health information system (HIS) and the MHA for resettlement in England. Data was analyzed using thematic analysis. The three themes indicated that the HIS was perceived to be effective, however, issues on governance, timeliness of information and access were identified. Findings showed that for the MHA to be more useful for planning, assessments for mental health issues and child special educational needs (SEN) are needed. Findings also indicated resettlement promoted joint working and acceptability of refugee resettlement. In areas where data sharing and governance processes are well defined, the HIS is effective and the MHA supports resettlement. National agencies should put structures in place to support timely health information flow.
BACKGROUND: One in seven people living in the United Kingdom (UK) is an international migrant, rendering migrants an important population group with diverse and dynamic health and healthcare needs. However, there has been no attempt to map contemporary trends within migration health research conducted in the UK. The aim of this scoping review was to describe trends within migration health research and identify gaps for future research agendas. METHODS: PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for empirical research with a primary focus on the concepts "health" and "migrants" published between 2001 and 2019. Findings were analysed using the UCL-Lancet Commission on Migration and Health Conceptual Framework for Migration and Health. RESULTS: In total, 399 studies were included, with almost half (41.1%; 164/399) published in the last five years of the study period between 2015 and 2019 and a third (34.1%; 136/399) conducted in London. Studies included asylum seekers (14.8%; 59/399), refugees (12.3%; 49/399), and undocumented migrants or migrants with insecure status (3.5%; 14/399), but most articles (74.9%; 299/399) did not specify a migrant sub-group. The most studied health topics were specific disease outcomes such as infectious diseases (24.1% of studies) and mental health (19.1%) compared to examining systems or structures that impact health (27.8%), access to healthcare (26.3%), or specific exposures or behaviours (35.3%). CONCLUSIONS: There has been a growing interest in migration health. Ensuring a diverse geographic distribution of research conducted in the UK and disaggregation by migrant sub-group is required for a nuanced and region-specific understanding of specific health needs, interventions and appropriate service delivery for different migrant populations. More research is needed to understand how migration policy and legislation intersect with both the social determinants of health and access to healthcare to shape the health of migrants in the UK.
IntroductionDifficulties ascertaining migrant status in national data sources such as hospital records have limited large-scale evaluation of migrant healthcare needs in many countries, including England. Linkage of immigration data for migrants and refugees, with National Health Service (NHS) hospital care data enables research into the relationship between migration and health for a large cohort of international migrants. ObjectivesWe aimed to describe the linkage process and compare linkage rates between migrant sub-groups to evaluate for potential bias for data on non-EU migrants and resettled refugees linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) in England. MethodsWe used stepwise deterministic linkage to match records from migrants and refugees to a unique healthcare identifier indicating interaction with the NHS (linkage stage 1 to NHS Personal Demographic Services, PDS), and then to hospital records (linkage stage 2 to HES). We calculated linkage rates and compared linked and unlinked migrant characteristics for each linkage stage. ResultsOf the 1,799,307 unique migrant records, 1,134,007 (63%) linked to PDS and 451,689 (25%) linked to at least one hospital record between 01/01/2005 and 23/03/2020. Individuals on work, student, or working holiday visas were less likely to link to a hospital record than those on settlement and dependent visas and refugees. Migrants from the Middle East and North Africa and South Asia were four times more likely to link to at least one hospital record, compared to those from East Asia and the Pacific. Differences in age, sex, visa type, and region of origin between linked and unlinked samples were small to moderate. ConclusionThis linked dataset represents a unique opportunity to explore healthcare use in migrants. However, lower linkage rates disproportionately affected individuals on shorter-term visas so future studies of these groups may be more biased as a result. Increasing the quality and completeness of identifiers recorded in administrative data could improve data linkage quality.
Migrants have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 and emerging evidence suggests they may face barriers to COVID-19 vaccination. Participatory approaches and engagement strategies are urgently needed to strengthen uptake, alongside innovative delivery mechanisms and sharing of best practice, to ensure migrants are better consider within countries' existing vaccine priority structures.
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.
Introduction: Early evidence confirms lower COVID-19 vaccine uptake in established ethnic minority populations, yet there has been little focus on understanding vaccine hesitancy and barriers to vaccination in migrants. Growing populations of precarious migrants (including undocumented migrants, asylum seekers and refugees) in the UK and Europe are considered to be under-immunised groups and may be excluded from health systems, yet little is known about their views on COVID-19 vaccines specifically, which are essential to identify key solutions and action points to strengthen vaccine roll-out. Methods: We did an in-depth semi-structured qualitative interview study of recently arrived migrants (foreign-born, >18 years old; <10 years in the UK) to the UK with precarious immigration status between September 2020 and March 2021, seeking their input into strategies to strengthen COVID-19 vaccine delivery and uptake. We used the 'Three Cs' model (confidence, complacency and convenience) to explore COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, barriers and access. Data were analysed using a thematic framework approach. Data collection continued until data saturation was reached, and no novel concepts were arising. The study was approved by the University of London ethics committee (REC 2020.00630). Results: We approached 20 migrant support groups nationwide, recruiting 32 migrants (mean age 37.1 years; 21 [66%] female; mean time in the UK 5.6 years [SD 3.7 years]), including refugees (n = 3), asylum seekers (n = 19), undocumented migrants (n = 8) and migrants with limited leave to remain (n = 2) from 15 different countries (5 WHO regions). 23 (72%) of 32 migrants reported being hesitant about accepting a COVID-19 vaccine and two (6%) would definitely not accept a vaccine. Participants communicated concerns over vaccine content, side-effects, lack of accessible information in an appropriate language, lack of trust in the health system and low perceived need. A range of barriers to accessing the COVID-19 vaccine were reported and concerns expressed that their communities would be excluded from or de-prioritised in the roll-out. Undocumented migrants described fears over being charged and facing immigration checks if they present for a vaccine. Participants (n = 10) interviewed after recent government announcements that COVID-19 vaccines can be accessed without facing immigration checks remained unaware of this. Participants stated that convenience of access would be a key factor in their decision around whether to accept a vaccine and proposed alternative access points to primary care services (for example, walk-in centres in trusted places such as foodbanks, community centres and charities), alongside promoting registration with primary care for all, and working closely with communities to produce accessible information on COVID-19 vaccination. Conclusions: Precarious migrants may be hesitant about accepting a COVID-19 vaccine and face multiple and unique barriers to access, requiring simple but innovative solutions to ensure equitable access and uptake. Vaccine hesitancy and low awareness around entitlement and relevant access points could be easily addressed with clear, accessible, and tailored information campaigns, co-produced and delivered by trusted sources within marginalised migrant communities. These findings have immediate relevance to the COVID-19 vaccination initiatives in the UK and in other European and high-income countries with diverse migrant populations. Funding: NIHR.
