The Challenge of Reaching Undocumented Migrants with COVID-19 Vaccination.

Access to vaccination against a health threat such as that presented by the COVID-19 pandemic is an imperative driven, in principle, by at least three compelling factors: (1) the right to health of all people, irrespective of their status; (2) humanitarian need of undocumented migrants, as well as of others including documented migrants, refugees and displaced people who are sometimes vulnerable and living in precarious situations; and (3) the need to ensure heath security globally and nationally, which in the case of a global pandemic requires operating on the basis that, for vaccination strategies to succeed in fighting a pandemic, the highest possible levels of vaccine uptake are required. Yet some population segments have had limited access to mainstream health systems, both prior to as well as during the COVID-19 pandemic. People with irregular resident status are among those who face extremely high barriers in accessing both preventative and curative health care. This is due to a range of factors that drive exclusion, both on the supply side (e.g., systemic and practical restrictions in service delivery) and the demand side (e.g., in uptake, including due to fears that personal data would be transmitted to immigration authorities). Moreover, undocumented people have often been at increased risk of infection due to their role as "essential workers", including those experiencing higher exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus due to frontline occupations while lacking protective equipment. Often, they have also been largely left out of social protection measures granted by governments to their populations during successive lockdowns. This article reviews the factors that serve as supply-side and demand-side barriers to vaccination for undocumented migrants and considers what steps need to be taken to ensure that inclusive approaches operate in practice.

Novel health systems service design checklist to improve healthcare access for marginalised, underserved communities in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Marginalised communities such as homeless people, people who use drugs (PWUD), lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people (LGBTI), prisoners, sex workers and undocumented migrants are at high risk of poor health and yet face substantial barriers in accessing health and support services. The Nobody Left Outside (NLO) Service Design Checklist aims to promote a collaborative, evidence-based approach to service design and monitoring based on equity, non-discrimination and community engagement. METHODS: The Checklist was a collaborative project involving nine community advocacy organisations, with a focus on homeless people, PWUD, LGBTI people, prisoners, sex workers, and undocumented migrants. The Checklist was devised via a literature review; two NLO platform meetings; a multistakeholder policy workshop and an associated published concept paper; two conference presentations; and stakeholder consultation via a European Commission-led Thematic Network (including webinar). RESULTS: The NLO Checklist has six sections in line with the WHO Health Systems Framework. These are: (1) service delivery, comprising design stage (6 items), services provided (2 items), accessibility and adaptation (16 items), peer support (2 items); (2) health workforce (12 items); (3) health information systems (7 items); (4) medical products and technologies (1 item); (5) financing (3 items); and (6) leadership and governance (7 items). It promotes the implementation of integrated (colocated or linked) healthcare services that are community based and people centred. These should provide a continuum of needs-based health promotion, disease prevention, diagnosis, treatment and management, together with housing, legal and social support services, in alignment with the goals of universal health coverage and the WHO frameworks on integrated, people-centred healthcare. CONCLUSIONS: The Checklist is offered as a practical tool to help overcome inequalities in access to health and support services. Policymakers, public health bodies, healthcare authorities, practitioner bodies, peer support workers and non-governmental organisations can use it when developing, updating or monitoring services for target groups. It may also assist civil society in wider advocacy efforts to improve access for underserved communities.

"Harnessing genomics to improve health in Africa" - an executive course to support genomics policy.

BACKGROUND: Africa in the twenty-first century is faced with a heavy burden of disease, combined with ill-equipped medical systems and underdeveloped technological capacity. A major challenge for the international community is to bring scientific and technological advances like genomics to bear on the health priorities of poorer countries. The New Partnership for Africa's Development has identified science and technology as a key platform for Africa's renewal. Recognizing the timeliness of this issue, the African Centre for Technology Studies and the University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics co-organized a course on Genomics and Public Health Policy in Nairobi, Kenya, the first of a series of similar courses to take place in the developing world. This article presents the findings and recommendations that emerged from this process, recommendations which suggest that a regional approach to developing sound science and technology policies is the key to harnessing genome-related biotechnology to improve health and contribute to human development in Africa. METHODS: The objectives of the course were to familiarize participants with the current status and implications of genomics for health in Africa; to provide frameworks for analyzing and debating the policy and ethical questions; and to begin developing a network across different sectors by sharing perspectives and building relationships. To achieve these goals the course brought together a diverse group of stakeholders from academic research centres, the media, non-governmental, voluntary and legal organizations to stimulate multi-sectoral debate around issues of policy. Topics included scientific advances in genomics innovation systems and business models, international regulatory frameworks, as well as ethical and legal issues. RESULTS: Seven main recommendations emerged: establish a network for sustained dialogue among participants; identify champions among politicians; use the New Plan for African Development (NEPAD) as entry point onto political agenda; commission an African capacity survey in genomics-related R&D to determine areas of strength; undertake a detailed study of R&D models with demonstrated success in the developing world, i.e. China, India, Cuba, Brazil; establish seven regional research centres of excellence; and, create sustainable financing mechanisms. A concrete outcome of this intensive five-day course was the establishment of the African Genome Policy Forum, a multi-stakeholder forum to foster further discussion on policy. CONCLUSION: With African leaders engaged in the New Partnership for Africa's Development, science and technology is well poised to play a valuable role in Africa's renewal, by contributing to economic development and to improved health. Africa's first course on Genomics and Public Health Policy aspired to contribute to the effort to bring this issue to the forefront of the policy debate, focusing on genomics through the lens of public health. The process that has led to this course has served as a model for three subsequent courses (in India, Venezuela and Oman), and the establishment of similar regional networks on genomics and policy, which could form the basis for inter-regional dialogue in the future.

Top ten biotechnologies for improving health in developing countries.

Most research into genomics and other related biotechnologies is concerned with the priorities of industrialized nations, and yet a limited number of projects have shown that these technologies could help improve health in developing countries. To encourage the successful application of biotechnology to global health, we carried out a study in which we asked an international group of eminent scientists with expertise in global health issues to identify the top ten biotechnologies for improving health in developing countries. The results offer concrete guidance to those in a position to influence the direction of research and development, and challenge common assumptions about the relevance and affordability of biotechnology for developing countries.