Patient data-sharing for immigration enforcement: a qualitative study of healthcare providers in England

The nexus of immigration regulation and health governance: a scoping review of the extent to which right to access healthcare by migrants, refugees and asylum seekers was upheld in the United Kingdom during COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

Complementing the well-established evidence base on health inequalities experienced by migrants, refugees and asylum seekers in the UK; we examined the extent to which their right to equal non-discriminatory access to health services (promotive, preventive, curative) was upheld during the COVID-19 pandemic.

STUDY DESIGN

Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted on Medline, PubMed, and CINAHL using detailed MESH terms, for literature published between 01 January 2020 and 01 January 2024. The process was supported by a ten-page Google search and hand searching of reference lists. 42 records meeting the inclusion criteria were charted, coded inductively and analysed thematically in an integrated team-based approach.

RESULTS

Dissonance between immigration regulation and health governance is illustrated in four themes: Health systems leveraged to (re)enforce the hostile environment; Dissonance between health rights on paper and in practice; Structural failures to overcome communication and digital exclusion; and COVID-19 vaccine (in)equity exacerbated fear, mistrust and exclusion. Migrants, refugees and asylum seekers encountered substantial individual, structural and policy-level barriers to accessing healthcare in the UK during COVID-19. Insecure immigration status, institutional mistrust, data-sharing and charging fears, communication challenges and digital exclusion impacted heavily on their ability to access healthcare in an equitable non-discriminatory manner.

CONCLUSIONS

An inclusive and innovative health equity and rights-based responses reaching all migrants, refugees and asylum seekers are warranted if the National Health Service is to live up to its promise of 'leaving no one behind' in post-pandemic and future responses.

Small numbers, big impact: making a utilitarian case for the contribution of inclusion health to population health in England

Inclusion health groups make up a small proportion of the general population, so despite the extreme social exclusion and poor health outcomes that these groups experience, they are often overlooked in public health investment and policy development. In this paper, we demonstrate that a utilitarian argument can be made for investment in better support for inclusion health groups despite their small size. That is, by preventing social exclusion, there is the potential for large aggregate health benefits to the whole population. We illustrate this by reframing existing published mortality estimates into population attributable fractions to show that 12% of all-cause premature deaths (95% CI 10.03% to 14.29%) are attributable to the circumstances of people who experience homelessness, use drugs and/or have been in prison. We also show that a large proportion of cause-specific premature deaths in the general population can be attributed to specific inclusion health groups, such as 43% of deaths due to viral hepatitis (95% CI 30.35% to 56.61%) and nearly 4000 deaths due to cancer (3844, 95% CI 3438 to 4285) between 2013 and 2021 attributed to individuals who use illicit opioids. Considering the complexity of the inclusion health policy context and the sparseness of evidence, we discuss how a shift in policy framing from 'inclusion health vs the rest of the population' to 'the impact of social exclusion on broader population health' makes a better case for increased policy attention and investment in inclusion health. We discuss the strengths and limitations of this approach and how it can be applied to public health policy, resource prioritisation and future research.

Integration of migrant and refugee data in health information systems in Europe: advancing evidence, policy and practice

Coverage of migrant and refugee data is incomplete and of insufficient quality in European health information systems. This is not because we lack the knowledge or technology. Rather, it is due to various political factors at local, national and European levels, which hinder the implementation of existing knowledge and guidelines. This reflects the low political priority given to the topic, and also complex governance challenges associated with migration and displacement. We review recent evidence, guidelines, and policies to propose four approaches that will advance science, policy, and practice. First, we call for strategies that ensure that data is collected, analyzed and disseminated systematically. Second, we propose methods to safeguard privacy while combining data from multiple sources. Third, we set out how to enable survey methods that take account of the groups' diversity. Fourth, we emphasize the need to engage migrants and refugees in decisions about their own health data. Based on these approaches, we propose a change management approach that narrows the gap between knowledge and action to create healthcare policies and practices that are truly inclusive of migrants and refugees. We thereby offer an agenda that will better serve public health needs, including those of migrants and refugees and advance equity in European health systems.

Funding

No specific funding received.

"Data makes the story come to life:" understanding the ethical and legal implications of Big Data research involving ethnic minority healthcare workers in the United Kingdom-a qualitative study

The aim of UK-REACH ("The United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers") is to understand if, how, and why healthcare workers (HCWs) in the United Kingdom (UK) from ethnic minority groups are at increased risk of poor outcomes from COVID-19. In this article, we present findings from the ethical and legal stream of the study, which undertook qualitative research seeking to understand and address legal, ethical, and social acceptability issues around data protection, privacy, and information governance associated with the linkage of HCWs' registration data and healthcare data. We interviewed 22 key opinion leaders in healthcare and health research from across the UK in two-to-one semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were coded using qualitative thematic analysis. Participants told us that a significant aspect of Big Data research in public health is varying drivers of mistrust-of the research itself, research staff and funders, and broader concerns of mistrust within participant communities, particularly in the context of COVID-19 and those situated in more marginalised community settings. However, despite the challenges, participants also identified ways in which legally compliant and ethically informed approaches to research can be crafted to mitigate or overcome mistrust and establish greater confidence in Big Data public health research. Overall, our research indicates that a "Big Data Ethics by Design" approach to research in this area can help assure (1) that meaningful community and participant engagement is taking place and that extant challenges are addressed, and (2) that any new challenges or hitherto unknown unknowns can be rapidly and properly considered to ensure potential (but material) harms are identified and minimised where necessary. Our findings indicate such an approach, in turn, will help drive better scientific breakthroughs that translate into medical innovations and effective public health interventions, which benefit the publics studied, including those who are often marginalised in research.

Strategies and action points to ensure equitable uptake of COVID-19 vaccinations: A national qualitative interview study to explore the views of undocumented migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees

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.

Conversations about FGM in primary care: a realist review on how, why and under what circumstances FGM is discussed in general practice consultations

OBJECTIVES

Little is known about the management of female genital mutilation (FGM) in primary care. There have been significant recent statutory changes relevant to general practitioners (GPs) in England, including a mandatory reporting duty. We undertook a realist synthesis to explore what influences how and when GPs discuss FGM with their patients.

SETTING

Primary care in England.

DATA SOURCES

Realist literature synthesis searching 10 databases with terms: GPs, primary care, obstetrics, gynaecology, midwifery and FGM (UK and worldwide). Citation chasing was used, and relevant grey literature was included, including searching FGM advocacy organisation websites for relevant data. Other potentially relevant literature fields were searched for evidence to inform programme theory development. We included all study designs and papers that presented evidence about factors potentially relevant to considering how, why and in what circumstances GPs feel able to discuss FGM with their patients.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

This realist review developed programme theory, tested against existing evidence, on what influences GPs actions and reactions to FGM in primary care consultations and where, when and why these influences are activated.

RESULTS

124 documents were included in the synthesis. Our analysis found that GPs need knowledge and training to help them support their patients with FGM, including who may be affected, what needs they may have and how to talk sensitively about FGM. Access to specialist services and guidance may help them with this role. Reporting requirements may complicate these conversations.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a pressing need to develop (and evaluate) training to help GPs meet FGM-affected communities' health needs and to promote the accessibility of primary care. Education and resources should be developed in partnership with community members. The impact of the mandatory reporting requirement and the Enhanced Dataset on healthcare interactions in primary care warrants evaluation.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018091996.

Supporting patients with female genital mutilation in primary care: a qualitative study exploring the perspectives of GPs' working in England

BACKGROUND

Female genital mutilation (FGM) includes all procedures that intentionally harm or alter female genitalia for non-medical reasons. In 2015, reporting duties were introduced, applicable to GPs working in England including a mandatory reporting duty and FGM Enhanced Dataset. Our patient and public involvement work identified the exploration of potential impacts of these duties as a research priority.

AIM

To explore the perspectives of GPs working in England on potential challenges and resource needs when supporting women and families affected by FGM.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Qualitative study with GPs working in English primary care.

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews focused around a fictional scenario of managing FGM in primary care. The authors spoke to 17 GPs from five English cities, including those who saw women who have experienced FGM often, rarely, or never. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim for thematic analysis. Lipsky's theory of street-level bureaucracy was drawn on to support analysis.

RESULTS

Managing women with FGM was experienced as complex. Challenges included knowing how and when to speak about FGM, balancing care of women and their family's potential care and safeguarding needs, and managing the mandated reporting and recording requirements. GPs described strategies to manage these tensions that helped them balance maintaining patient-doctor relationships with reporting requirements. This was facilitated by access to FGM holistic services.

CONCLUSION

FGM reporting requirements complicate consultations. The potential consequences on trust between women affected by FGM and their GP are clear. The tensions that GPs experience in supporting women affected by FGM can be understood through the theoretical lens of street-level bureaucracy. This is likely to be relevant to other areas of proposed mandated reporting.

Knowledge and Practice of Patients' Data Sharing and Confidentiality Among Nurses in Jordan

BACKGROUND

The key patient rights entail respecting human decency, receiving healthcare services of high-quality, the right to information, the initial agreement of the patient to medical intervention, respecting privacy and personal life, and sustaining care and treatment. This study aims to survey the knowledge and practice of nurses in various healthcare industries toward sharing and confidentiality of patients' data.

METHODS

A descriptive cross-sectional design was employed through an online survey from May to June 2020. The authors sent a developed tool containing 19 statements reflecting the understanding of nurses' knowledge and practice of privacy and sharing of data required to safeguard patient privacy. A total of 800 nurses agreed to participate in the study out of 1000 nurses.

RESULTS

Roughly, all participants agreed that junior nurses should participate in a data sharing and confidentiality course before engaging in practice. Regarding institution policies for data sharing and protection, many nurses agreed that there are special recommendations and instructions from the institution in which they work to exchange patient information among nurses and the medical staff. The predictors of sharing practices and confidentiality among nurses include age, gender, marriage status, and attending a security course before practice. Young age, female, not attending a data sharing course, and single nurses are less engaging with data sharing and confidentiality of the patients for unauthorized patients.

CONCLUSION

A significant proportion of the staff had appropriate practices that ensured data security. However, practices that ensure patient confidentiality in the aspects of access, sharing, and transferring of patient data need improvement. Training is essential since it will have a beneficial relationship with knowledge, opinions, views, and actions. Thus, planning continuous training on policies and regulations about data safety and privacy may assist in improving healthcare setting practices.