Medical consequences of "contingency accommodation" for people seeking asylum: thematic analysis of a survey from professionals working in contingency accommodation.

BACKGROUND: Concerns about the housing of migrants and asylum seekers have escalated since the COVID-19 pandemic. From the use of quasi-detention facilities and so-called contingency accommodation to outbreaks of diphtheria in processing centres, there is a worrying trend to normalise potentially damaging conditions. The aim of this study was to assess the health risks posed by contingency housing for asylum seekers in the UK. METHODS: In this cross-sectional survey, a 10-point online questionnaire was sent to professional networks working with refugees and asylum seekers within the UK. Responses were collected between March 4, and April 11, 2022, using a mixture of convenience and snowballing sampling approach. The objectives of the survey were (1) to identify and document unmet needs, (2) to offer practical support, and (3) to map out services and organisation. The survey was designed by six medical professionals with experience of working with migrants and validated by three doctors who had experience running out-reach medical clinics for asylum seekers within contingency accommodation. Background details of geographical location and occupation were collected, and a combination of closed and open questions were used to collect information across five domains (medical, legal social, integration, and basic essentials) using a social determinants of health framework. A code book thematic analysis using a deductive/inductive hybrid approach was used to identify health and social needs as well as specific rights being denied. FINDINGS: There were 68 responses from around the UK, of which 30 (44%) were health-care professionals, and 38 (56%) were from the wider voluntary sector. 45 (67%) had visited an accommodation site, and 21 (33%) had worked with those living in contingency accommodation in other respects. Respondents reported observations regarding sites across most parts of the UK. Major themes of access to health-care, access to other services, barriers to access, and safeguarding were identified, with subthemes on access to primary care, maternity, and mental health services (eg, "Vast unmet need in mental health provision, several suicide attempts"); access to basic essential services (eg, "Food was not fit for purpose" "[c]hildren often did not receive breakfast"); education, and legal support; and frequent moving and communication. INTERPRETATION: Through several themes we highlight the substantial impact of structural isolation of asylum seekers through contingency housing, its major effects on wellbeing and the exacerbation of health inequities. We are using these results to work with asylum seekers and local non-governmental organisations to campaign for improved housing conditions. Study limitations include sampling bias, and a lack of voices of those with lived experience. FUNDING: None.

Social determinants of health and the double burden of disease in Nepal: a secondary analysis.

BACKGROUND: As the global burden of disease evolves, lower-resource countries like Nepal face a double burden of non-communicable and infectious disease. Rapid adaptation is required for Nepal's health system to provide life-long, person-centred care while simultaneously improving quality of infectious disease services. Social determinants of health be key in addressing health disparities and could direct policy decisions to promote health and manage the disease burden. Thus, we explore the association of social determinants with the double burden of disease in Nepal. METHODS: This is a retrospective, ecological, cross-sectional analysis of infectious and non-communicable disease outcome data (2017 to 2019) and data on social determinants of health (2011 to 2013) for 753 municipalities in Nepal. Multinomial logistic regression was conducted to evaluate the associations between social determinants and disease burden. RESULTS: The 'high-burden' combined double burden (non-communicable and infectious disease) outcome was associated with more accessible municipalities, (adjOR3.94[95%CI2.94-5.28]), municipalities with higher proportions of vaccine coverage (adjOR12.49[95%CI3.05-51.09]) and malnutrition (adjOR9.19E103[95%CI19.68E42-8.72E164]), lower average number of people per household (adjOR0.32[95%CI0.22-0.47]) and lower indigenous population (adjOR0.20[95%CI0.06-0.65]) compared to the 'low-burden' category on multivariable analysis. 'High-burden' of non-communicable disease was associated with more accessible municipalities (adjOR1.93[95%CI1.45-2.57]), higher female proportion within the municipality (adjOR1.69E8[95%CI3227.74-8.82E12]), nutritional deficiency (adjOR1.39E17[95%CI11799.83-1.64E30]) and malnutrition (adjOR2.17E131[95%CI4.41E79-1.07E183]) and lower proportions of population under five years (adjOR1.05E-10[95%CI9.95E-18-0.001]), indigenous population (adjOR0.32[95%CI0.11-0.91]), average people per household (adjOR0.44[95%CI0.26-0.73]) and households with no piped water (adjOR0.21[95%CI0.09-0.49]), compared to the 'low-burden' category on adjusted analysis. 'High burden' of infectious disease was also associated with more accessible municipalities (adjOR4.29[95%CI3.05-6.05]), higher proportions of population under five years (adjOR3.78E9[95%CI9418.25-1.51E15]), vaccine coverage (adjOR25.42[95%CI7.85-82.29]) and malnutrition (adjOR4.29E41[95%CI12408.29-1.48E79]) and lower proportions of households using firewood as fuel (adjOR0.39[95%CI0.20-0.79]) ('moderate-burden' category only) compared to 'low-burden'. CONCLUSIONS: While this study produced imprecise estimates and cannot be interpreted for individual risk, more accessible municipalities were consistently associated with higher disease burden than remote areas. Female sex, lower average number per household, non-indigenous population and poor nutrition were also associated with higher burden of disease and offer targets to direct interventions to reduce the burden of infectious and non-communicable disease and manage the double burden of disease in Nepal.

Pharmacovigilance of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors for Genital Fungal Infections and Urinary Tract Infections: A Review of the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System Database.

Background: Postmarketing surveillance had previously identified the need for revisions in the labeling of the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors drug class related to the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis. Other adverse events have been reported. Objective: To examine postmarketing surveillance data of the SGLT2 inhibitors, using the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database, specifically to assess prevalence of urinary tract infections (UTIs) and genital fungal infections. Methods: FAERS case reports submitted between March 2013 and November 2015 were reviewed for 6 SGLT2 inhibitors (mono and combo therapies). The Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) was used to define preferred terms (genital fungal infections: vulvovaginal mycotic infection, vulvovaginal candidiasis, urinary tract infection fungal, and genital candidiasis; UTI: urinary tract infection, genitourinary tract infection, kidney infection, cystitis, and pyelonephritis). Word frequencies were queried using the qualitative data analysis software NVivo 11 (QSR International), and results were then individually reviewed. Results: A total of 12 581 cases were received, but 466 were excluded (total n = 12 115). A total of 348 cases related to genital fungal infections were reported (2.9% of reports submitted): dapagliflozin = 53, empagliflozin/linagliptin = 6, canagliflozin = 267, canagliflozin/metformin = 3, empagliflozin = 17, and dapagliflozin/metformin HCl ER = 2. A total of 727 cases related to UTIs were reported (6% of reports submitted): dapagliflozin = 168, empagliflozin/linagliptin = 5, canagliflozin/metformin = 8, canagliflozin = 503, empagliflozin = 38, and dapagliflozin/metformin HCl ER = 5. Conclusions: A causal relationship between SGLT2 inhibitors and the adverse events reported cannot be established due to the nature of postmarketing surveillance. However, health care providers should counsel patients about these potential adverse events.