Management and control of tuberculosis control in socially complex groups: a research programme including three RCTs

The forgotten people: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection as a priority for the inclusion health agenda

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection represents a significant global health threat, accounting for 300 million chronic infections and up to 1 million deaths each year. HBV disproportionately affects people who are under-served by health systems due to social exclusion, and can further amplify inequities through its impact on physical and mental health, relationship with stigma and discrimination, and economic costs. The 'inclusion health' agenda focuses on excluded and vulnerable populations, who often experience barriers to accessing healthcare, and are under-represented by research, resources, interventions, advocacy, and policy. In this article, we assimilate evidence to establish HBV on the inclusion health agenda, and consider how this view can inform provision of better approaches to diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. We suggest approaches to redress the unmet need for HBV interventions among excluded populations as an imperative to progress the global goal for the elimination of viral hepatitis as a public health threat.

"It's too hard" - the management of latent TB in under-served populations in the UK: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

UK national guidance recommends systematic screening for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) in under-served populations, including people experiencing homelessness and people who use drugs. This is not routinely implemented in the UK, and the reasons for this policy-practice mismatch remain underexplored.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 19 healthcare professionals from across the UK. Participants were recruited using purposive sampling and snowballing, identifying individuals with excellent knowledge of their regions practice and policy of LTBI management. The interviews were conducted online, and were audio recorded, with transcripts thematically analysed using a two-stage inductive coding process to explore perceived barriers and enablers to LTBI screening.

RESULTS

Most participants had previous experience managing LTBI in under-served populations, but none were conducting systematic screening as per national guidance. We identified service provision challenges and low prioritisation of LTBI as the key explanatory themes driving this policy-practice mismatch. Lack of resource, and the complexity of clinical decision making were two key service level barriers. System and service inertia, and lack of cost effectiveness evidence led to LTBI being deprioritised. Service integration and promotion of WHO targets for TB elimination were highlighted as potential solutions.

CONCLUSION

Integrating LTBI testing and treatment with existing health services for under-served populations could improve feasibility and efficacy. Promotion of UK TB elimination goals and generation of regional evidence to support commissioning for LTBI care is vital. Without such a multi-pronged approach inertia is likely to persist and the zeitgeist will remain: "it's too hard".

What is the volume, diversity and nature of recent, robust evidence for the use of peer support in health and social care? An evidence and gap map

Background

Peer support interventions involve people drawing on shared personal experience to help one another improve their physical or mental health, or reduce social isolation. If effective, they may also lessen the demand on health and social care services, reducing costs. However, the design and delivery of peer support varies greatly, from the targeted problem or need, the setting and mode of delivery, to the number and content of sessions. Robust evidence is essential for policymakers commissioning peer support and practitioners delivering services in health care and community settings. This map draws together evidence on different types of peer support to support the design and delivery of interventions.

Objectives

The aim of this map was to provide an overview of the volume, diversity and nature of recent, high quality evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the use of peer support in health and social care.

Search Methods

We searched MEDLINE, seven further bibliographic databases, and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews (in October 2020), randomised controlled trials (in March 2021) and economic evaluations (in May 2021) on the effectiveness of peer support interventions in health and social care. We also conducted searches of Google Scholar, two trial registers, PROSPERO, and completed citation chasing on included studies.

Selection Criteria

Systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials and economic evaluations were included in the map. Included studies focused on adult populations with a defined health or social care need, were conducted in high-income countries, and published since 2015. Any measure of effectiveness was included, as was any form of peer support providing the peer had shared experience with the participant and a formalised role.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were extracted on the type of peer support intervention and outcomes assessed in included studies. Standardised tools were used to assess study quality for all studies: assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews 2 for systematic reviews; Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised controlled trials; and consensus health economic criteria list for economic evaluations.

Main Results

We included 91 studies: 32 systematic reviews; 52 randomised controlled trials; and 7 economic evaluations. Whilst most included systematic reviews and economic evaluations were assessed to be of low or medium quality, the majority of randomised controlled trials were of higher quality. There were concentrations of evidence relating to different types of peer support, including education, psychological support, self-care/self-management and social support. Populations with long-term health conditions were most commonly studied. The majority of studies measured health-related indicators as outcomes; few studies assessed cost-effectiveness. Studies were unevenly distributed geographically, with most being conducted in the USA. Several gaps were evident regarding the delivery of peer support, particularly the integration of peers and professionals in delivering support and interventions of longer duration.

Authors' Conclusions

Although there is evidence available to inform the commissioning and delivery of peer support in health and social care, there are also clear gaps that need to be addressed to further support provision, particularly regarding cost-effectiveness. The effectiveness of peer support in different countries, with varying health and social care systems, is a priority for future research, as is the integration of peers with professionals in delivering peer support.