METHODS: In-depth interviews, observations, informal conversational interviews, mystery client and critical incident technique were used. We estimated the size of FEW population using the census enumeration technique. The findings were used to inform intervention development and implementation.
RESULTS: We estimated 376 Vietnamese and 330 Thai FEWs in 2 geographical sites where they operated in Singapore. Their reasons for non-condom use included misconceptions on the transmission and consequences of STI/HIV, low risk perception of contracting HIV/STI from paid/casual partner, lack of skills to negotiate or to persuade partner to use condom, unavailability of condoms in entertainment establishments and fear of the police using condom as circumstantial evidence. They faced difficulties in accessing health services due to fear of identity exposure, stigmatisation, cost and language differences. To develop the intervention, we involved FEWs and peer educators, and ensured that the intervention was non-stigmatising and met their needs. To foster their participation, we used culturally-responsive recruitment strategies, and ensured that the trial was anonymous and acceptable to the FEWs. These strategies were effective as we achieved a participation rate of 90.3%, a follow-up rate of 70.5% for the comparison and 66.8% for the intervention group. The interventions group reported a significant increase in consistent condom use with a reduction in STI incidence compared to no significant change in the comparison group.
CONCLUSIONS: The qualitative inquiry approaches to gain access, to foster participation and to develop a culturally appropriate intervention, along with the census enumeration technique application to estimate the FEW population sizes has led to successful intervention implementation as well as safer sexual behaviour and STI incidence reduction.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02780986 . Registered 23 May 2016 (retrospectively registered).
METHODS AND FINDINGS: Key electronic databases including Medline, Embase, Scopus, Global Health, CinAHL, EconLit and Business Source Premier were searched. We also searched the grey literature, specifically websites of leading organizations supporting health care in LMICs. Only studies using benefit incidence analysis (BIA) and/or financing incidence analysis (FIA) as explicit methodology were included. A total of 512 records were obtained from the various sources. The full texts of 87 references were assessed against the selection criteria and 24 were judged appropriate for inclusion. Twelve of the 24 studies originated from sub-Saharan Africa, nine from the Asia-Pacific region, two from Latin America and one from the Middle East. The evidence points to a pro-rich distribution of total health care benefits and progressive financing in both sub-Saharan Africa and Asia-Pacific. In the majority of cases, the distribution of benefits at the primary health care level favoured the poor while hospital level services benefit the better-off. A few Asian countries, namely Thailand, Malaysia and Sri Lanka, maintained a pro-poor distribution of health care benefits and progressive financing.
CONCLUSION: Studies evaluated in this systematic review indicate that health care financing in LMICs benefits the rich more than the poor but the burden of financing also falls more on the rich. There is some evidence that primary health care is pro-poor suggesting a greater investment in such services and removal of barriers to care can enhance equity. The results overall suggest that there are impediments to making health care more accessible to the poor and this must be addressed if universal health coverage is to be a reality.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review presents current evidence on the barriers and facilitators to engaging men in health screening.
METHODS: We included qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method studies identified through five electronic databases, contact with experts and reference mining. Two researchers selected and appraised the studies independently. Data extraction and synthesis were conducted using the 'best fit' framework synthesis method.
RESULTS: 53 qualitative, 44 quantitative and 6 mixed-method studies were included. Factors influencing health screening uptake in men can be categorized into five domains: individual, social, health system, healthcare professional and screening procedure. The most commonly reported barriers are fear of getting the disease and low risk perception; for facilitators, they are perceived risk and benefits of screening. Male-dominant barriers include heterosexual -self-presentation, avoidance of femininity and lack of time. The partner's role is the most common male-dominant facilitator to screening.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of barriers and facilitators to health screening in men including the male-dominant factors. The findings are particularly useful for clinicians, researchers and policy makers who are developing interventions and policies to increase screening uptake in men.
METHODS: The location and capability of hospitals to perform the Bellwether procedures was obtained from the Ministry of Health (MoH) and MoH hospital specific websites. The Malaysian population data were retrieved from the national department of statistics. Times for patients to travel to hospital were calculated by combining manual contouring and geospatial mapping.
RESULTS: There were 49 Bellwether-capable MoH hospitals serving a national population of 32.5 million. Overall 94% of Malaysia's population have access to the Bellwethers within two hours. This coverage is universal in West (Peninsular) Malaysia, but there is only 73% coverage in East Malaysia, with 1.8 million residents of Sabah and Sarawak not having timely access. Malaysia's Bellwether capacity compares well with other countries in World Health Organisation's Western Pacific region.
CONCLUSION: There is good access to essential and emergency surgical services in Malaysia. The incomplete access for 1.8 million people in East Malaysia will inform national surgical planning.
METHODS: The study was conducted among 1010 women who were registered as migrant returnees at an organisation called Pourakhi Nepal. Secondary data were extracted from the records of the organisation covering the five-year period of July 2009 to July 2014.
RESULTS: The 1010 participants were aged 14 to 51 with a median age of 31 (IQR: 38-25) years. A quarter of respondents (24%) reported having experienced health problems while in the country of employment. Fever, severe illness and accidents were the most common health problems reported. Working for unlimited periods of time and not being able to change one's place of work were independently associated with a greater likelihood of health problems. Logistic regression shows that migrant women who are illiterate [OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.02 to 2.38, p = 0.042], who had changed their workplace [OR = 1.63, 95% CI: 1.14 to 2.32, p = 0.007], who worked unlimited periods of time [OR = 1.64, 95% CI: 1.44 to 1.93, p = 0.020], had been severely maltreated or tortured in the workplace [OR = 1.84, 95% CI: 1.15 to 2.92, p = 0.010], were not being paid on time [OR = 2.38, 95% CI: 1.60 to 3.55, p = 0.038] and migrant women who had family problems at home [OR = 3.48, CI 95%: 1.22 to 9.98, p = 0.020] were significantly associated with health problems in their host country in the Middle East.
CONCLUSION: Female migrant workers face various work-related health risks, which are often related to exploitation. The Government of Nepal should initiate awareness campaigns about health risks and rights in relation to health care services in the host countries. Recruiting agencies/employers should provide information on health risks and training for preventive measures. Raising awareness among female migrant workers can make a change in their working lives.