In the last three years, the European Union (EU) is being confronted with the most significant influx of migrants and refugees since World War II. Although the dimensions of this influx—taking the global scale into account—might be regarded as modest, the institutional response to that phenomenon so far has been suboptimal, including the health sector. While inherent challenges of refugee and migrant (R&M) health are well established, it seems that the EU health response oversees, to a large extend, these aspects. A whole range of emergency-driven health measures have been implemented throughout Europe, yet they are failing to address adequately the changing health needs and specific vulnerabilities of the target population. With the gradual containment of the migratory and refugee waves, three years after the outbreak of the so-called ‘refugee crisis’, we are, more than ever, in need of a sustainable and comprehensive health approach that is aimed at the integration of all of migrants and refugees—that is, both the new and old population groups that are already residing in Europe—in the respective national health systems.

Objectives: To determine the average time in months between the beginning of symptoms and the diagnostic confirmation of leprosy by the health system and to investigate factors associated with diagnostic delay.Methods: A total of 249 patients older than 15 years diagnosed with leprosy between 2011 and 2015, in 20 endemic municipalities of north‐eastern Colombia, provided informed consent and were interviewed face‐to‐face. Clinical histories from health centres or hospitals where study participants were treated for leprosy were also reviewed.Results: The mean delay in diagnosis of leprosy was 33.5 months. About 14.9% of patients showed a visible deformity or damage (disability grade 2, DG2) at the time of diagnosis. In multivariable regression analysis, five or more consultancies required to confirm the diagnosis and not seeking care immediately after noticing first symptoms were associated with longer diagnostic delay.Conclusions: Our study found a significant delay in diagnosis of leprosy in north‐eastern Colombia, which might explain the continuously high rate of DG2 among new cases being notified in the country. Both patient‐ and health system‐related factors were associated with longer diagnostic delay. Interventions to increase awareness of disease among the general population and timely referral to a specialised health professional are urgently needed in our study setting.

Background: Leprosy is a chronic infectious disease caused by Mycobacterium leprae, the annual new case detection in 2019 was 202,189 globally. Measuring endemicity levels and burden in leprosy lacks a uniform approach. As a result, the assessment of leprosy endemicity or burden are not comparable over time and across countries and regions. This can make program planning and evaluation difficult. This study aims to identify relevant metrics and methods for measuring and classifying leprosy endemicity and burden at (sub)national level. Methods: We used a mixed-method approach combining findings from a systematic literature review and a Delphi survey. The literature search was conducted in seven databases, searching for endemicity, burden and leprosy. We reviewed the available evidence on the usage of indicators, classification levels, and scoring methods to measure and classify endemicity and burden. A two round Delphi survey was conducted to ask experts to rank and weigh indicators, classification levels, and scoring methods. Results: The literature review showed variation of indicators, levels, and cut-off values to measure leprosy endemicity and/or burden. The most used indicators for endemicity include new case detection rate (NCDR), new cases among children and new cases with grade 2 disability. For burden these include NCDR, MB cases, and prevalence. The classification levels ‘high’ and ‘low’ were most important. It was considered most relevant to use separate scoring methods for endemicity and burden. The scores would be derived by use of multiple indicators. Conclusion: There is great variation in the existing method for measuring endemicity and burden across countries and regions. Our findings contribute to establishing a standardized uniform approach to measure and classify leprosy endemicity and burden at (sub)national level, which would allow effective communication and planning of intervention strategies.

The epidemiological transitions that have occurred in low and middle income countries (LMIC) during the past decades have led to an increased prevalence on non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in these countries, where the burden of infectious diseases (IDs), especially tuberculosis (TB), remains high. Although the true dimensions of this comorbidity have not yet been fully understood, there is a growing amount of data, over the last 10 years, that suggest a clear association between NCDs and TB. In particular, there is a continuously increasing body of evidence that diabetes mellitus, chronic respiratory conditions, tobacco use, mental health illnesses and chronic kidney disease increase TB morbidity and mortality and vice versa. This bidirectional negative association between diseases may jeopardise the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) specific TB targets, thus underlying the importance of integrated public health responses towards both epidemics. Population as well as individual based approaches are required, along with both strategic and operation integration on a global scale. This year's United Nations High Level Meetings (ΗLMs) presented a rare opportunity for the political foundations of the TB and NCD responses to be dug together, thus creating a potential breakthrough in the global response to both epidemics.

Background: Contact tracing as an epidemiological strategy has repeatedly contributed to the containment of various past epidemics and succeeded in controlling the spread of disease in the community. Systematic training of contact tracers is crucial in ensuring the effectiveness of epidemic containment. Methods: An intensive training course was offered to 216 health and other professionals who work with vulnerable population groups, such as Roma, refugees, and migrants in Greece, by the scientific team of the postgraduate programme “Global Health-Disaster Medicine” of the Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, with the support of the Swiss embassy in Greece. The course was delivered online due to the pandemic restriction measures and was comprised of 16 h over 2 days. The course curriculum was adapted in Greek using, upon agreement, a similar training course to what was developed by the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health. Evaluation of the course was conducted in order to determine the short term satisfaction from participating in this training course. Results: A total of 70% of the course participants completed the evaluation questionnaires and all trainers gave feedback on the course. The training modules were ranked as extremely useful by the majority of the participants and over 50% of the participants specifically stated that the course content was directly related to their work with vulnerable groups. Content about the ethics of contact tracing and the effective communication skills presented were deemed most useful. Conclusion: The course was well organised and provided the required skills for effective contact tracing. Many course participants intend to use some components in their work with vulnerable populations groups. Contact tracing efforts work best in a systematic and coordinated way and the provision of systematic and organised training can greatly increase its effectiveness.