Co-designing a theory-informed, multicomponent intervention to increase vaccine uptake with Congolese migrants: A qualitative, community-based participatory research study (LISOLO MALAMU)

Integrating Systems Thinking and Behavioural Science

Traditional approaches to changing health behaviours have primarily focused on education and raising awareness, assuming that increased knowledge leads to better decisions. However, evidence suggests these methods often fail to result in sustained behavioural change. The dual-process theory of decision-making highlights that much of our behaviour is driven by automatic, intuitive processes, which educational interventions typically overlook. Compounding this challenge, behavioural research is often conducted on small groups, making it difficult to scale insights into broader societal issues, where behaviour is influenced by complex, interconnected factors. This review advocates for integrating behavioural science with systems approaches (including systems thinking and approaches to complex adaptive systems) as a more effective approach to resolving complex societal issues, such as public health, sustainability, and social equity. Behavioural science provides insights into individual decision-making, while systems approaches offer ways of understanding, and working with, the dynamic interactions and feedback loops within complex systems. The review explores the commonalities and differences between these two approaches, highlighting areas where they complement one another. Design thinking is identified as a useful structure for bridging behavioural science and systems thinking, enabling a more holistic approach to problem-solving. Though some ideological challenges remain, the potential for creating more effective, scalable solutions is significant. By leveraging the strengths of both behavioural science and systems thinking, one can create more comprehensive strategies to address the "wicked problems" that shape societal health and well-being.

How has co-design been used to address vaccine hesitancy globally? A systematic review

Improving vaccine confidence is a topic of major public health importance. Reasons for vaccine hesitancy are multifactorial, making it challenging to find strategies to address them. This systematic review aimed to synthesize the literature on how co-design has been used to reduce vaccine hesitancy. We searched six databases in March and October 2024. Eligible studies described the co-design process used to develop interventions for addressing vaccine hesitancy and increasing vaccine confidence. We assessed the quality of included studies, extracted and descriptively summarized the key data. Twenty-seven articles were included, 20 of which were based in a high-income setting. Most studies centered on the COVID-19 (n = 9) and HPV (n = 9) vaccines. Co-design yielded diverse interventions, with videos being the most common intervention format (n = 11). We observed substantial variations in the reporting style and terminology used within the studies and limited attempts to assess intervention effectiveness.

Vaccination coverage and access among children and adult migrants and refugees in the Middle East and North African region: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The Middle East and North African (MENA) region is a major global hotspot for migration with more than 40 million migrants, who may be an under-vaccinated group because of barriers to vaccination within countries of origin, transit, and destination. We systematically synthesised the evidence on coverage, acceptance, drivers of uptake, and policies pertaining to vaccination for children and adult migrants in the region, in order to explore tailored interventions for these groups.

Methods

We searched six databases (including Medline, Embase) for peer-reviewed literature, and other websites (including WHO, IOM, ministries of health) for grey literature on coverage, acceptance, drivers of uptake and policies for any vaccination in migrants in the MENA region from between 2000 and 27 August 2024 in any language. We included studies reporting primary data on coverage, acceptance, and drivers of uptake, and any relevant articles on policies. We defined migrants as individuals who move away from their place of habitual residence, within or across international borders, temporarily or permanently. Studies without disaggregated migrant data were excluded. Primary outcomes were coverage (% individuals receiving ≥1 doses of any vaccine) and acceptance (% individuals accepting any vaccine). We separately synthesised data on children (<18 years) and adults (≥18). Estimates were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis where possible or narratively synthesised, and drivers of uptake were synthesised using the WHO Behavioural and Social Drivers model. PROSPERO protocol: CRD42023401694.

Findings

We identified 6088 database and 282 grey literature records and included 55 studies and 1,906,975 migrants across 15 countries (including mostly refugees in the Middle East and expatriates in Gulf Cooperation Council countries). COVID-19 vaccination was reportedly provided free of charge to migrants in all countries whereas childhood vaccinations were reportedly provided to migrant children in seven countries. However, for adolescents and adults, there were wide variations across countries, and we found no policies relating to catch-up vaccination. Coverage for childhood vaccination amongst migrants was reportedly low, with only 36.0% of 589 migrant children fully vaccinated according to national schedules (95% CI 35.0%-43.0%, I 2 = 67%; data from migrants in Lebanon, Morocco, Sudan). Likewise, data on specific routine vaccines in children was generally low: measles containing vaccines (MCV): MCV dose 1 63.9%-66.9%; MCV dose 2 25.4%-85.6%; oral polio vaccine (OPV): OPV dose 3 65.1%-76.4%; diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTP) containing vaccines: DTP dose 1 81.8%-86.7%; DTP dose 3 59.7%-76.6%). Drop-out rates across all routine vaccines for subsequent vaccine doses ranged from 12.4 to 38.5%, suggesting that migrants face a range of barriers to vaccine uptake beyond the first dose, that need to be better considered when designing interventions. For adults, we found eleven studies on coverage (including 9 on COVID-19) showing that COVID-19 vaccination coverage ranged 33.5-84.8% in migrants and 25.0-59.0% in host populations. Drivers of uptake of childhood vaccination in migrants included limited availability of vaccines and vaccination personnel, communication and administrative barriers, financial difficulties, lack of caregiver knowledge about services, and concerns expressed by caregivers around safety and benefits. For adults, drivers were mainly related to the COVID-19 vaccine and included concerns around safety, quality, side effects, and mistrust in vaccines and the systems that deliver them.

Interpretation

Migrants have unique risk factors for under-immunisation in the MENA region and have low vaccination coverage despite some level of entitlement to services. Data on vaccination coverage, drivers of uptake and policies for migrants in the MENA region is limited to small-scale studies among accessible groups, mostly focusing on COVID-19 compared to routine childhood and adult vaccination. There is an urgent need to strengthen data collection to better understand coverage across different migrant groups, ages, and MENA countries, especially on adult and catch-up vaccinations for routine immunisations, and develop innovative co-designed strategies to address specific drivers of vaccine uptake among this group.

Funding

La Caixa, LCF/PR/SP21/52930003.

Public and Patient Involvement in Migration Health Research: Eritrean and Syrian Refugees' and Asylum Seekers' Views in Switzerland

Prior research has highlighted important healthcare access and utilization issues among new forced immigrants. We aimed to explore the role that public and patient involvement (PPI) might play in enhancing accessibility and specific contributions to migration health studies. We conducted open and in-depth interactive virtual discussions with asylum seekers and refugees from Eritrea and Syria in Switzerland. The PPI establishment consisted of three phases: inception, training and contribution. Prior to training, the concept of PPI was not straightforward to grasp, as it was a new approach-however, after training and consecutive discussions, participants were ardent to engage actively. We conclude that PPI holds promise in regard to raising awareness, improving healthcare system accessibilities and utilization, and enhancing and strengthening migration health research. Indeed, PPI volunteers were keen to raise their community's awareness through their networks and bridge an important gap between researchers and the public.

Navigating vaccination choices: The intersecting dynamics of institutional trust, belonging and message perception among Congolese migrants in London, UK (a reflexive thematic analysis)

The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately impacted intersectionally marginalised migrants, revealing systemic disparities in health outcomes and vaccine uptake. Understanding the underlying social and structural factors influencing health behaviours is necessary to develop tailored interventions for migrants, but these factors have been seldom explored. This qualitative study aimed to explore contextual factors shaping COVID-19 vaccination decision-making among Congolese migrants in the UK.A community-based participatory research study was designed and led by a community-academic partnership in London, UK (2021-2022). Peer-led, semi-structured interviews were conducted in Lingala with 32 adult Congolese migrants and explored beliefs, perceptions and lived experiences of migration, healthcare, vaccination and the COVID-19 pandemic. Reflexive thematic analysis generated two themes and a model conceptualising the vaccination decision-making process. Participants and community partners were financially compensated; ethics was granted by the University of London ethics committee (REC: 2021.0128).Participants highlighted the incompatibility of lockdown restrictions with their communal culture, which intensified feelings of exclusion and alienation. Concerns about COVID-19 vaccination were attributed to safety and effectiveness, partly informed by experiences and legacies of racial discrimination and exploitation. Inequality in the pandemic response and COVID-19 outcomes heightened participants' sense that their views and needs were being overlooked, and government sources and information were perceived as coercive. Our model depicts the interplay between institutional trust, belonging, and message perception, which shaped participants' vaccination decisions and led to (non-)engagement with COVID-19 vaccination. This research enhances understanding of how social and contextual factors may influence migrants' engagement with health interventions. It underscores the importance of partnering with migrant communities to understand their needs in context and co-design tailored interventions and inclusive messaging strategies that promote trust and belonging. Implementing systemic changes to address structural inequalities will be crucial to create an environment that supports engagement with health-protective behaviours and enhances health outcomes among migrant communities.

Understanding the views of adult migrants around catch-up vaccination for missed routine immunisations to define strategies to improve coverage: A UK in-depth interview study

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization's (WHO) Immunization Agenda 2030 emphasises ensuring equitable access to vaccination across the life course. This includes placing an emphasis on migrant populations who may have missed key childhood vaccines, doses, and boosters due to disrupted healthcare systems and the migration process, or differing vaccination schedules in home countries. Guidelines exist in the UK for offering catch-up vaccinations to adolscent and adult migrants with incomplete or uncertain vaccination status (including MMR, Td-IPV, MenACWY, HPV), but emerging evidence suggests awareness and implementation in primary care is poor. It is unclear whether patient-level barriers to uptake of catch-up vaccinations also exist. We explored experiences and views around catch-up vaccination among adult migrants from a range of backgrounds, to define strategies for improving catch-up vaccination policy and practice.

METHODS

In-depth semi-structured interviews were carried out in two phases with adult migrant populations (refugees, asylum seekers, undocumented migrants, those with no recourse to public funds) on views and experiences around vaccination, involving a team of peer researchers from specific migrant communities trained through the study. In Phase 1, we conducted remote interviews with migrants resident in the UK for < 10 years, from diverse backgrounds. In Phase 2, we engaged specifically Congolese and Angolan migrants as part of a community-based participatory study. Topic guides were developed iteratively and piloted. Participants were recruited using purposive, opportunistic and snowball sampling methods. Interviews were conducted in English (interpreters offered), Lingala or French and were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using a thematic framework approach in NVivo 12.

RESULTS

71 participants (39 in Phase 1, 32 in Phase 2) were interviewed (Mean age 43.6 [SD:12.4] years, 69% female, mean 9.5 [SD:7] years in the UK). Aside from COVID-19 vaccines, most participants reported never having been offered vaccinations or asked about their vaccination history since arriving in the UK as adults. Few participants mentioned being offered specific catch-up vaccines (e.g. MMR/Td-IPV) when attending a healthcare facility on arrival in the UK. Vaccines such as flu vaccines, pregnancy-related or pre-travel vaccination were more commonly mentioned. In general, participants were not aware of adult catch-up vaccination but regarded it positively when it was explained. A few participants expressed concerns about side-effects, risks/inconveniences associated with access (e.g. links to immigration authorities, travel costs), preference for natural remedies, and hesitancy to engage in further vaccination campaigns due to the intensity of COVID-19 vaccination campaigns. Trust was a major factor in vaccination decisions, with distinctions noted within and between groups; some held a healthcare professional's recommendation in high regard, while others were less trusting towards the healthcare system because of negative experiences of the NHS and past experiences of discrimination, injustice and marginalisation by wider authorities.

CONCLUSIONS

The major barrier to adult catch-up vaccination for missed routine immunisations and doses in migrant communities in the UK is the limited opportunities, recommendations or tailored vaccination information presented to migrants by health services. This could be improved with financial incentives for provision of catch-up vaccination in UK primary care, alongside training of healthcare professionals to support catch-up immunisation and raise awareness of existing guidelines. It will also be essential to address root causes of mistrust around vaccination, where it exists among migrants, by working closely with communities to understand their needs and meaningfully involving migrant populations in co-producing tailored information campaigns and culturally relevant interventions to improve coverage.