METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted 30 semistructured interviews with health policy-makers, health service providers, and other experts working in the United Nations (n = 6), ministries and public health (n = 5), international (n = 9) and national civil society (n = 7), and academia (n = 3) based in Indonesia (n = 6), Malaysia (n = 10), Myanmar (n = 6), and Thailand (n = 8). Data were analysed thematically using deductive and inductive coding. Interviewees described the cumulative nature of health risks at each migratory phase. Perceived barriers to addressing migrants' cumulative health needs were primarily financial, juridico-political, and sociocultural, whereas key facilitators were many health workers' humanitarian stance and positive national commitment to pursuing universal health coverage (UHC). Across all countries, financial constraints were identified as the main challenges in addressing the comprehensive health needs of refugees and asylum seekers. Participants recommended regional and multisectoral approaches led by national governments, recognising refugee and asylum-seeker contributions, and promoting inclusion and livelihoods. Main study limitations included that we were not able to include migrant voices or those professionals not already interested in migrants.
CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is one of the first qualitative studies to investigate the health concerns and barriers to access among migrants experiencing forced displacement, particularly refugees and asylum seekers, in Southeast Asia. Findings provide practical new insights with implications for informing policy and practice. Overall, sociopolitical inclusion of forcibly displaced populations remains difficult in these four countries despite their significant contributions to host-country economies.
METHOD: The COVID-19 Vaccination Policy Research and Decision-Support Initiative in Asia (CORESIA) was established to address policy questions related to CVCs. An online cross-sectional survey was conducted from June to October 2021 in nine Asian countries. Multivariable logistical regression analyses were performed to identify potential opposers of CVCs.
RESULTS: Six groups were identified as potential opposers of CVCs: (i) unvaccinated (Odd Ratio (OR): 2.01, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.65-2.46); vaccine hesitant and those without access to COVID-19 vaccines; (ii) those not wanting existing NPIs to continue (OR: 2.97, 95% CI: 2.51-3.53); (iii) those with low level of trust in governments (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.02-2.52); (iv) those without travel plans (OR: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.31-1.90); (v) those expecting no financial gains from CVCs (OR: 2.35, 95% CI: 1.98-2.78); and (vi) those disagreeing to use CVCs for employment, education, events, hospitality, and domestic travel.
CONCLUSIONS: Addressing recurring public health bottlenecks such as vaccine hesitancy and equitable access, adherence to policies, public trust, and changing the narrative from 'societal-benefit' to 'personal-benefit' may be necessary and may help increase wider adoption of CVCs in Asia.