Engaging the vulnerable: A rapid review of public health communication aimed at migrants during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommends national risk communications tools targeting migrant communities to contain the spread of COVID-19. Within Europe, migrants are often left behind in healthcare due to structural barriers driven by hostile environment measures. This study aimed to assess inclusion of migrants in COVID-19 prevention measures by evaluating if governmental risk communications are available in common migrant languages across Europe. METHODS: A rapid review was performed in June 2020 to understand the availability of government produced risk communications across Council of Europe member states, namely: COVID-19 health communications, migrant-specific guidelines and COVID-19 helplines. RESULTS: 96% (45/47) of countries sampled had online government COVID-19 advice. 30% (15/47) issued information in their official language(s), whilst 64% (30/47) of countries delivered information in additional languages. 48% (23/47) translated information into at least one migrant language. However, information on testing or healthcare entitlements in common migrant languages was only found in 6% (3/47). Half (53%; 25/47) of the countries with COVID-19 helpline offered information in at least one alternative language.No government produced risk communications on disease prevention targeting people in refugee camps or informal settlements. CONCLUSIONS: There are clear gaps in the availability of translated COVID-19 risk communications across Europe, excluding migrants from the COVID-19 response. Governments must reflect on the inclusion of migrants within their COVID-19 response and seek to engage vulnerable communities. Governments should urgently partner with non-governmental organizations who already play a key role in addressing unmet health needs.

WHO guidance for refugees in camps: systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The circumstances of people living in refugee camps means that they have distinct medical care requirements. Our objective is to describe clinical guidance in published WHO guidelines that refer to people living in refugee camps; and how evidence and context are used and reported in making recommendations. DESIGN: Systematic review and analysis of WHO guidelines approved by the organisation's quality oversight body and published between 2007 and 2018. We sought for key terms related to camps and humanitarian settings, and identified text that included guidance. We compared this to Mèdecins Sans Frontièrs (MSF) guidelines. RESULTS: No WHO guideline published in the last 10 years focused exclusively on clinical guidance for healthcare in camp settings. Seven guidelines contained guidance about camps; three made recommendations for camps-but only two used formal evidence summaries. We did not find any structured consideration of the situation in camps used in the decision-making process. We examined seven WHO guidelines and six chapters within guidelines that concerned humanitarian settings: none of these documents contained recommendations based on formal evidence summaries for camp settings. One of the eight MSF guidelines was devoted to clinical care in refugees and the authors had clearly linked the health problems and recommendations to the setting, but this guideline is now >20 years old. CONCLUSIONS: There is an absence of up-to-date, evidence-based medical treatment guidelines from WHO and MSF that comprehensively address the clinical needs for people living in camps; and there is no common framework to help guideline groups formulate recommendations in these settings. WHO may wish to consider context of special populations more formally in the evidence to decision-making approach for clinical guidelines relevant to primary care.

Non-communicable diseases: ditch the label and recapture public awareness.

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are branded as the leading cause of global mortality. Global health thinking has dichotomised NCDs from communicable diseases to attract funding and end a dangerous neglect. However, NCDs can also have infectious disease risk factors, and mortality from NCDs is greatest in low- and middle-income countries, which face a syndemic burden of disease. As a non-term, attention is not immediately focused around key 'human-made' risk factors for chronic disease. By continuing to use this flawed and ambiguous label, policymakers risk enforcing an ideological approach, which fails to encourage global health researchers to work collaboratively and to capture the political and public awareness required to motivate sustainable change.

Innovative Surveillance Strategies to Support the Elimination of Filariasis in Africa.

Lymphatic filariasis (LF) and onchocerciasis are two neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) of public health significance targeted for global elimination. The World Health Organization (WHO) African Region is a priority region, with the highest collective burden of LF and onchocerciasis globally. Coendemic loiasis further complicates elimination due to the risk of adverse events associated with ivermectin treatment. A public health framework focusing on health-related data, systematic collection of data, and analysis and interpretation of data is used to highlight the range of innovative surveillance strategies required for filariasis elimination. The most recent and significant developments include: rapid point-of-care test (POCT) diagnostics; clinical assessment tools; new WHO guidelines; open-access online data portals; mHealth platforms; large-scale prevalence maps; and the optimisation of mathematical models.