Background Low-wage migrant workers are vulnerable to healthcare inequities. We sought to identify potential barriers to healthcare and risk factors for mental health issues in non-domestic migrant workers in Singapore, and identify high-risk subgroups. Methods A cross-sectional, interviewer-administered survey of 433 non-domestic migrant workers was conducted at subsidised clinics and a foreign worker dormitory from July to August 2016. Questions assessed healthcare usage patterns, affordability issues, barriers to care and psychological distress using a validated screening scale (Kessler-6). Findings Bangladeshi workers surveyed were more likely to be single, have more financial dependents, a lower level of education and salary and pay higher agent fees (p<0.01). 61.4% of workers reported that they had insurance, but had poor understanding of whether it covered inpatient/outpatient expenses. The majority of workers had not, or were not sure if they had, received information about company-bought insurance (72.4%). Among those who had, most reported that information was not in their native language (67.7%). Non-specific psychological distress was found in 21.9%, as estimated by the Kessler-6 scale. Multivariate analysis found that psychological distress was independently associated with Bangladeshi nationals (OR 2.98, 95% CI 1.58 to 5.62; p=0.001) and previous experience of financial barriers to healthcare (OR 3.86, 95% CI 2.25 to 6.62; p<0.0001). Interpretation We identified gaps in non-domestic migrant workers' knowledge of healthcare coverage, and substantial financial barriers to healthcare. The Bangladeshi population in our study was at higher risk of such barriers and psychological distress. These represent areas for further research and intervention.

In Southeast Asia, cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in women. Low coverage for cervical cancer screening (CCS) becomes a roadblock to disease detection and treatment. Existing reviews on CCS have limited insights into the barriers and facilitators for SEA. Hence, this study aims to identify key barriers and facilitators among women living in SEA. A systematic literature review was conducted on Pubmed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and SCOPUS. Primary qualitative and quantitative studies published in English that reported barriers and facilitators to CCS were included. The Mix Methods Appraisal Tool was used for the quality assessment of the included studies. Among the 93 included studies, pap smears (73.1%) were the most common screening modality. A majority of the studies were from Malaysia (35.5%). No studies were from Timor-Leste and the Philippines. The most common barriers were embarrassment (number of articles, n = 33), time constraints (n = 27), and poor knowledge of screening (n = 27). The most common facilitators were related to age (n = 21), receiving advice from healthcare workers (n = 17), and education status (n = 11). Findings from this review may inform health policy makers in developing effective cervical cancer screening programs in SEA countries.

There is growing interest globally in using real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) for health technology assessment (HTA). Optimal collection, analysis, and use of RWD/RWE to inform HTA requires a conceptual framework to standardize processes and ensure consistency. However, such framework is currently lacking in Asia, a region that is likely to benefit from RWD/RWE for at least two reasons. First, there is often limited Asian representation in clinical trials unless specifically conducted in Asian populations, and RWD may help to fill the evidence gap. Second, in a few Asian health systems, reimbursement decisions are not made at market entry; thus, allowing RWD/RWE to be collected to give more certainty about the effectiveness of technologies in the local setting and inform their appropriate use. Furthermore, an alignment of RWD/RWE policies across Asia would equip decision makers with context-relevant evidence, and improve timely patient access to new technologies. Using data collected from eleven health systems in Asia, this paper provides a review of the current landscape of RWD/RWE in Asia to inform HTA and explores a way forward to align policies within the region. This paper concludes with a proposal to establish an international collaboration among academics and HTA agencies in the region: the REAL World Data In ASia for HEalth Technology Assessment in Reimbursement (REALISE) working group, which seeks to develop a non-binding guidance document on the use of RWD/RWE to inform HTA for decision making in Asia.

Migrant workers comprise about one-fifth of Singapore's resident population and form a substantial and vital component of the nation's workforce. However, limited data is available regarding the barriers that migrant workers face in accessing healthcare from the healthcare providers' perspective. We conducted a survey on doctors working in four restructured hospitals in Singapore, to assess what they perceived to be barriers faced by migrant workers in accessing healthcare. We also assessed the doctors' understanding of migrant-health-related policies in Singapore. A total of 427 survey responses were collected. Most respondents were senior doctors (senior residents or consultants) who had been practising medicine for a median of ten years. Among doctors, the most common perceived barriers to migrant workers accessing healthcare were related to culture/language (92.3%) and finances (healthcare cost) (81%). Of the six questions asked pertaining to migrant healthcare policy in Singapore, the respondents achieved a median of four correctly answered questions (interquartile range 3-5), and 55% were unaware or unsure of available resources for migrant workers. Our study identified healthcare providers' perceived barriers to the delivery of healthcare to migrant workers, which corroborate previously published data reported by migrant workers themselves. Further efforts should be directed toward diminishing these barriers and increasing the literacy of migrant health among healthcare workers.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) partial genotyping (PGT) identifies HPV16 and HPV18 individually, alongside 12 other high-risk HPV genotypes (hrHPV) collectively. HPV extended genotyping (XGT) identifies four additional hrHPV individually (HPV31, 45, 51, and 52), and reports the remaining eight in three groups (HPV33|58; 56|59|66; 35|39|68). Quality-adjusted life years (QALY), health care resource use, and costs of XGT were compared to PGT for cervical cancer screening in Singapore using DICE simulation. Women with one of the three hrHPV identified by XGT (HPV35|39|68; 56|59|66; 51), and atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) on cytology, are recalled for a repeat screening in one year, instead of undergoing an immediate colposcopy with PGT. At the repeat screening, the colposcopy is performed only for persistent same-genotype infections in XGT, while with PGT, all the women with persistent HPV have a colposcopy. Screening 500,122 women, aged 30–69, with XGT, provided an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) versus PGT of SGD 16,370/QALY, with 7130 (19.4%) fewer colposcopies, 6027 (7.0%) fewer cytology tests, 9787 (1.6%) fewer clinic consultations, yet 2446 (0.5%) more HPV tests. The XGT ICER remains well below SGD 100,000 in sensitivity analyses, (-SGD 17,736/QALY to SGD 50,474/QALY). XGT is cost-effective compared to PGT, utilizes fewer resources, and provides a risk-based approach as the primary cervical cancer screening method.