Perspectives of Vietnamese, Sudanese and South Sudanese immigrants on targeting migrant communities for latent tuberculosis screening and treatment in low-incidence settings: A report on two Victorian community panels.
Australia
deliberative methodologies
latent tuberculosis
migrant health
population screening
Journal
Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy
ISSN: 1369-7625
Titre abrégé: Health Expect
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815926
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2020
12 2020
Historique:
received:
07
05
2020
revised:
15
07
2020
accepted:
21
07
2020
pubmed:
13
9
2020
medline:
10
8
2021
entrez:
12
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Tuberculosis (TB) elimination strategies in Australia require a focus on groups who are at highest risk of TB infection, such as immigrants from high-burden settings. Understanding attitudes to different strategies for latent TB infection (LTBI) screening and treatment is an important element of justifiable elimination strategies. Two community panels were conducted in Melbourne with members of the Vietnamese (n = 11), Sudanese and South Sudanese communities (n = 9). Panellists were provided with expert information about LTBI and different screening and health communication strategies, then deliberated on how best to pursue TB elimination in Australia. Both panels unanimously preferred LTBI screening to occur pre-migration rather than in Australia. Participants were concerned that post-migration screening would reach fewer migrants, noted that conducting LTBI screening in Australia could stigmatize participants and that poor awareness of LTBI would hamper participation. If targeted screening was to occur in Australia, the Vietnamese panel preferred 'place-based' communication strategies, whereas the Sudanese and South Sudanese panel emphasized that community leaders should lead communication strategies to minimize stigma. Both groups emphasized the importance of maintaining community trust in Australian health service providers, and the need to ensure targeting did not undermine this trust. Pre-migration screening was preferred. If post-migration screening is necessary, the potential for stigma should be reduced, benefit and risk profile clearly explained and culturally appropriate communication strategies employed. Cultural attitudes to health providers, personal health management and broader social vulnerabilities of targeted groups need to be considered in the design of screening programs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Tuberculosis (TB) elimination strategies in Australia require a focus on groups who are at highest risk of TB infection, such as immigrants from high-burden settings. Understanding attitudes to different strategies for latent TB infection (LTBI) screening and treatment is an important element of justifiable elimination strategies.
METHOD
Two community panels were conducted in Melbourne with members of the Vietnamese (n = 11), Sudanese and South Sudanese communities (n = 9). Panellists were provided with expert information about LTBI and different screening and health communication strategies, then deliberated on how best to pursue TB elimination in Australia.
FINDINGS
Both panels unanimously preferred LTBI screening to occur pre-migration rather than in Australia. Participants were concerned that post-migration screening would reach fewer migrants, noted that conducting LTBI screening in Australia could stigmatize participants and that poor awareness of LTBI would hamper participation. If targeted screening was to occur in Australia, the Vietnamese panel preferred 'place-based' communication strategies, whereas the Sudanese and South Sudanese panel emphasized that community leaders should lead communication strategies to minimize stigma. Both groups emphasized the importance of maintaining community trust in Australian health service providers, and the need to ensure targeting did not undermine this trust.
CONCLUSION
Pre-migration screening was preferred. If post-migration screening is necessary, the potential for stigma should be reduced, benefit and risk profile clearly explained and culturally appropriate communication strategies employed. Cultural attitudes to health providers, personal health management and broader social vulnerabilities of targeted groups need to be considered in the design of screening programs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32918523
doi: 10.1111/hex.13121
pmc: PMC7752196
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1431-1440Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2014 Feb;38(1):78-82
pubmed: 24494951
Lancet. 2015 May 2;385(9979):1799-1801
pubmed: 25814376
Lancet. 2007 May 5;369(9572):1528-1534
pubmed: 17482983
Tuberculosis (Edinb). 2015 Jul;95(4):373-84
pubmed: 26038289
Health Policy. 2010 Sep;97(1):26-31
pubmed: 20347504
Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Sep;18(9):e259-e271
pubmed: 29778396
BMJ Open. 2012 Aug 06;2(4):
pubmed: 22869094
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2017 Jun 1;21(6):610-623
pubmed: 28482955
J Travel Med. 2019 Feb 1;26(2):
pubmed: 30476162
Soc Sci Med. 2017 Apr;179:166-171
pubmed: 28285232
Eur Respir J. 2018 Jul 11;52(1):
pubmed: 29794133
Bioethics. 2004 Nov;18(6):531-52
pubmed: 15580723
Soc Sci Med. 2014 May;109:1-9
pubmed: 24657639
Health Expect. 2018 Feb;21(1):90-99
pubmed: 28665050
Int J Infect Dis. 2017 Mar;56:90-100
pubmed: 27810521
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2020 Oct;44(5):353-359
pubmed: 32776658
PLoS One. 2018 Dec 31;13(12):e0209798
pubmed: 30596719
Soc Sci Med. 2001 Mar;52(6):935-48
pubmed: 11234866
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2015 Feb;19(2):137-40
pubmed: 25574909
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2007 Aug;31(4):333-5
pubmed: 17725011
J Med Ethics. 2017 Sep;43(9):632-636
pubmed: 28143943
Health Policy. 2009 Apr;90(1):8-12
pubmed: 18835056
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 05;8(12):e82440
pubmed: 24349284
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2013 Mar;17(3):388-93
pubmed: 23407228
Commun Dis Intell Q Rep. 2015 Jun 30;39(2):E217-35
pubmed: 26234258
J Bioeth Inq. 2016 Mar;13(1):65-73
pubmed: 26757725
BMC Med Ethics. 2018 Mar 2;19(1):16
pubmed: 29499693
Health Expect. 2020 Dec;23(6):1431-1440
pubmed: 32918523
Soc Sci Med. 2015 Apr;131:114-21
pubmed: 25770463
Hastings Cent Rep. 2012 Mar-Apr;42(2):14-7
pubmed: 22733324
Eur Respir J. 2015 Apr;45(4):928-52
pubmed: 25792630
J Public Health (Oxf). 2006 Sep;28(3):253-60
pubmed: 16820434
Confl Health. 2018 May 16;12:18
pubmed: 29785203
Soc Sci Med. 2004 Aug;59(4):753-62
pubmed: 15177832
Eur Respir J. 2009 Nov;34(5):1180-9
pubmed: 19880618
Eur Respir J. 2009 May;33(5):956-73
pubmed: 19407047
Public Underst Sci. 2014 Jan;23(1):48-52
pubmed: 24434712
Med J Aust. 2012 Oct 15;197(8):458-61
pubmed: 23072243
Aust Health Rev. 2005 Feb;29(1):25-9
pubmed: 15683352
Lancet Infect Dis. 2017 May;17(5):e128-e143
pubmed: 28291721
Health Policy. 2020 Jan;124(1):106-112
pubmed: 31818484
ERJ Open Res. 2018 Mar 23;4(1):
pubmed: 29577042
Public Health. 2019 Mar;168:142-147
pubmed: 30771630
Commun Dis Intell (2018). 2019 Apr 15;43:
pubmed: 30982297
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 May 6;70(10):2111-2118
pubmed: 31246254