Tuberculosis is a communicable disease of public health concern that inequitably impacts the most vulnerable populations worldwide. Vulnerable populations are those with a high risk for tuberculosis disease and whose disadvantaged or marginalised socioeconomic position limits their access to the health system. We conducted an overview of reviews that aimed to assess the burden (ie, prevalence and incidence) of tuberculosis disease among 12 vulnerable populations globally. We did an overview of reviews using a systematic search in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews for articles published in English, French, and Chinese, from Jan 1, 2010 to March 8, 2023. We did an initial search on Oct 28, 2021, and updated our search on March 8, 2023. We included systematic and scoping reviews reporting on the prevalence or incidence of active tuberculosis among 12 vulnerable populations. Evidence gaps were supplemented with primary or secondary database studies. Study characteristics and outcome data related to tuberculosis burden were tabulated, including prevalence ratios and incidence rate ratios, and evidence was synthesised narratively. This trial is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022324421). We screened 13 169 citations and included 44 publications (23 reviews and 21 primary or database studies) in the final synthesis. The comprehensiveness and methodological quality of the evidence differed across population groups. Prevalence of more than 1000 cases per 100 000 were reported in all vulnerable populations. On the basis of pooled estimates, prevalence ratios were often more than 25 among people experiencing homelessness, incarcerated populations, refugees, asylum seekers, and people living with HIV compared with the general population. Incidence was infrequently reported, with the best-available incidence rate ratios documented for people who were incarcerated. There was scarce evidence specific to miners, nomadic populations, sex workers, men who have sex with men, and transgender individuals. The burden of tuberculosis is substantially higher among vulnerable populations than general populations, suggesting a need for improved integration of these groups, including dedicated efforts for their identification, targeted screening and prevention measures, as well as treatment support. WHO.

Background: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has infected 1.9% of the world population by May 2, 2021. Since most previous studies that examined risk factors for mortality and severity were based on hospitalized individuals, population-based cohort studies are called for to provide evidence that can be extrapolated to the general population. Therefore, we aimed to examine the associations of comorbidities with mortality and disease severity in individuals with COVID-19 diagnosed in 2020 in Ontario, Canada.Methods and findings: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all individuals with COVID-19 in Ontario, Canada diagnosed between January 15 and December 31, 2020. Cases were linked to health administrative databases maintained in the ICES which covers all residents in Ontario. The primary outcome is all-cause 30-day mortality after the first COVID-19 diagnosis, and the secondary outcome is a composite severity index containing death and hospitalization. To examine the risk factors for the outcomes, we employed Cox proportional hazards regression models and logistic regression models to adjust for demographic, socio-economic variables and comorbidities. Results were also stratified by age groups. A total of 167,500 individuals were diagnosed of COVID-19 in 2020 and included in the study. About half (43.8%, n = 73,378) had at least one comorbidity. The median follow-up period were 30 days. The most common comorbidities were hypertension (24%, n = 40,154), asthma (16%, n = 26,814), and diabetes (14.7%, n = 24,662). Individuals with comorbidity had higher risk of mortality compared to those without (HR = 2.80, 95%CI 2.35–3.34; p<0.001), and the risk substantially was elevated from 2.14 (95%CI 1.76–2.60) to 4.81 (95%CI 3.95–5.85) times as the number of comorbidities increased from one to five or more. Significant predictors for mortality included comorbidities such as solid organ transplant (HR = 3.06, 95%CI 2.03–4.63; p<0.001), dementia (HR = 1.46, 95%CI 1.35–1.58; p<0.001), chronic kidney disease (HR = 1.45, 95%CI 1.34–1.57; p<0.001), severe mental illness (HR = 1.42, 95%CI%, 1.12–1.80; p<0.001), cardiovascular disease (CVD) (HR = 1.22, 95%CI, 1.15–1.30), diabetes (HR = 1.19, 95%, 1.12–1.26; p<0.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (HR = 1.19, 95%CI 1.12–1.26; p<0.001), cancer (HR = 1.17, 95%CI, 1.09–1.27; p<0.001), hypertension (HR = 1.16, 95%CI, 1.07–1.26; p<0.001). Compared to their effect in older age groups, comorbidities were associated with higher risk of mortality and severity in individuals under 50 years old. Individuals with five or more comorbidities in the below 50 years age group had 395.44 (95%CI, 57.93–2699.44, p<0.001) times higher risk of mortality compared to those without. Limitations include that data were collected during 2020 when the new variants of concern were not predominant, and that the ICES databases do not contain detailed individual-level socioeconomic and racial variables.Conclusion: We found that solid organ transplant, dementia, chronic kidney disease, severe mental illness, CVD, hypertension, COPD, cancer, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, HIV, and asthma were associated with mortality or severity. Our study highlights that the number of comorbidities was a strong risk factor for deaths and severe outcomes among younger individuals with COVID-19. Our findings suggest that in addition of prioritizing by age, vaccination priority groups should also include younger population with multiple comorbidities.

Objective The aim of this review, conducted in April 2020, is to examine available national primary care guidelines for COVID-19 and to explore the ways in which these guidelines support primary care facilities in responding to the demands of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design Rapid review and narrative synthesis. Data sources PubMed, Embase and Google, as well as the websites of relevant national health departments, were searched from 1 January 2020 to 24 April 2020. Eligibility criteria Documents included must be issued by a national health authority, must be specific to COVID-19 care, directed at healthcare workers or managers, and must refer to the role of primary care in the COVID-19 response. Results We identified 17 documents from 14 countries. An adapted framework on primary care challenges and responses to pandemic influenza framed our analysis. Guidelines generally reported on COVID-19 service delivery and mostly made specific recommendations for ensuring continued delivery of essential primary care services through telehealth or other virtual care modalities. Few offered guidance to support surveillance as a public health function. All offered guidance on implementing outbreak control measures, largely through flexible and coordinated organisational models with partners from various sectors. There was a lack of guidance to support supply chain management and practice resilience in primary care, and lack of personal protective equipment represents a serious threat to the provision of quality care during the pandemic. Conclusions Current national primary care guidelines for COVID-19 provide guidance on infection control and minimising the risk of spread in primary care practices, while supporting the use of new technology and coordinated partnerships. However, to ensure primary care practice resilience and quality of care are upheld, guidelines must offer recommendations on supply chain management and operational continuity, supported by adequate resources.

A population-based approach to healthcare goes beyond the traditional biomedical model and addresses the importance of cross-sectoral collaboration in promoting health of communities. By establishing partnerships across primary care (PC) and public health (PH) sectors in particular, healthcare organizations can address local health needs of populations and improve health outcomes. The purpose of this study was to map a series of interventions from the empirical literature that facilitate PC-PH collaboration and develop a resource for healthcare organizations to self-evaluate their clinical practices and identify opportunities for collaboration with PH. A scoping review was designed and studies from relevant peer-reviewed literature and reports between 1990 and 2017 were included if they met the following criteria: empirical study methodology (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods), based in US, Canada, Western Europe, Australia or New Zealand, describing an intervention involving PC-PH collaboration, and reporting on structures, processes, outcomes or markers of a PC-PH collaboration intervention. Out of 2962 reviewed articles, 45 studies with interventions leading to collaboration were classified into the following four synergy groups developed by Lasker’s Committee on Medicine and Public Health: Coordinating healthcare services (n = 13); Applying a population perspective to clinical practice (n = 21); Identifying and addressing community health problems (n = 19), and Strengthening health promotion and health protection (n = 21). Furthermore, select empirical examples of interventions and their key features were highlighted to illustrate various approaches to implementing collaboration interventions in the field. The findings of our review can be utilized by a range of organizations in healthcare settings across the included countries. Furthermore, we developed a self-evaluation tool that can serve as a resource for clinical practices to identify opportunities for cross-sectoral collaboration and develop a range of interventions to address unmet health needs in communities; however, the generalizability of the findings depends on the evaluations conducted in individual studies in our review. From a health equity perspective, our findings also highlight interventions from the empirical literature that address inequities in care by targeting underserved, high-risk populations groups. Further research is needed to develop outcome measures for successful collaboration and determine which interventions are sustainable in the long term.

Background: Overuse of antibiotics contributes to the development of antimicrobial resistance. Objective: This study aims to assess the condition of antibiotic use at health facilities at county, township and village levels in rural Guangxi, China. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions in 2014 for children aged 2–14 years with upper respiratory infections (URI). Twenty health facilities were randomly selected, including four county hospitals, eight township hospitals and eight village clinics. Prescriptions were extracted from the electronic records in the county hospitals and paper copies in the township hospitals and village clinics. Results: The antibiotic prescription rate was higher in township hospitals (593/877, 68%) compared to county hospitals (2736/8166, 34%) and village clinics (96/297, 32%) (p < 0.001). Among prescriptions containing antibiotics, county hospitals were found to have the highest use rate of broad-spectrum antibiotics (82 vs 57% [township], vs 54% [village], p < 0.001), injectable antibiotics (65 vs 43% [township], vs 33% [village], p < 0.001) and multiple antibiotics (47 vs 15% [township], vs 0% [village], p < 0.001). Logistic regression showed that the likelihood of prescribing an antibiotic was significantly associated with patients being 6–14 years old compared with being 2–5 years old (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.3, 95% CI 1.2–1.5), and receiving care at township hospitals compared with county hospitals (aOR = 5.0, 95% CI 4.1–6.0). Prescriptions with insurance copayment appeared to lower the risk of prescribing antibiotics compared with those without (aOR = 0.8, 95% CI 0.7–0.9). Conclusions: Inappropriate use of antibiotics was high for outpatient childhood URI in the four counties of Guangxi, China, with the highest rate found in township hospitals. A significant high proportion of prescriptions containing antibiotics were broad-spectrum, by intravenous infusion or with multiple antibiotics, especially at county hospitals. Urgent attention is needed to address this challenge.

Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing causes widespread serious health problems. To reduce prescribing of antibiotics in Chinese primary care to children with upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), we developed an intervention comprising clinical guidelines, monthly prescribing review meetings, doctor–patient communication skills training, and education materials for caregivers. We previously evaluated our intervention using an unblinded cluster-randomised controlled trial (cRCT) in 25 primary care facilities across two rural counties. When our trial ended at the 6-month follow-up period, we found that the intervention had reduced antibiotic prescribing for childhood URTIs by 29 percentage points (pp) (95% CI −42 to −16). In this long-term follow-up study, we collected our trial outcomes from the one county (14 facilities and 1:1 cluster randomisation ratio) that had electronic records available 12 months after the trial ended, at the 18-month follow-up period. Our primary outcome was the antibiotic prescription rate (APR)—the percentage of outpatient prescriptions containing any antibiotic(s) for children aged 2 to 14 years who had a primary diagnosis of a URTI and had no other illness requiring antibiotics. We also conducted 15 in-depth interviews to understand how interventions were sustained. In intervention facilities, the APR was 84% (1,171 out of 1,400) at baseline, 37% (515 out of 1,380) at 6 months, and 54% (2,748 out of 5,084) at 18 months, and in control facilities, it was 76% (1,063 out of 1,400), 77% (1,084 out of 1,400), and 75% (2,772 out of 3,685), respectively. After adjusting for patient and prescribing doctor covariates, compared to the baseline intervention-control difference, the difference at 6 months represented a 6-month intervention-arm reduction in the APR of −49 pp (95% CI −63 to −35; P < 0.0001), and compared to the baseline difference, the difference at 18 months represented an 18-month intervention-arm reduction in the APR of −36 pp (95% CI −55 to −17; P < 0.0001). Compared to the 6-month intervention-control difference, the difference at 18 months represented no change in the APR: 13 pp (95% CI −7 to 33; P = 0.21). Factors reported to sustain reductions in antibiotic prescribing included doctors’ improved knowledge and communication skills and focused prescription review meetings, whereas lack of supervision and monitoring may be associated with relapse. Key limitations were not including all clusters from the trial and not collecting returned visits or sepsis cases. Our intervention was associated with sustained and substantial reductions in antibiotic prescribing at the end of the intervention period and 12 months later. Our intervention may be adapted to similar resource-poor settings. ISRCTN registry ISRCTN14340536.