ReviewTherapeutic advances in infectious disease
Screening for neglected tropical diseases and other infections in refugee and asylum-seeker populations in the United Kingdom.
Review in Therapeutic advances in infectious disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Initial health assessments of children and young people seeking asylum and refugees in Europe: insights from a qualitative study of health care providers.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- Combining country indicators and individual variables to predict soil-transmitted helminth infections among migrant populations: A case study from southern Italy.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025Article
- Health Catch-UP!: a realist evaluation of an innovative multi-disease screening and vaccination tool in UK primary care for at-risk migrant patients.BMC medicine · 2024Article
- The forgotten people: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection as a priority for the inclusion health agenda.eLife · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Asylum-seekers and refugees have an increased burden of infections compared with the general population. This has been widely recognised by countries welcoming those fleeing conflict and persecution; however, there are no screening standardised guidelines and regulatory processes. Identification of certain neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) and other infections is important for the health and well-being of the individual in addition to public health and biosecurity. In the United Kingdom, screening for infections at port of entry or after arrival is not mandatory. Those on refugee resettlement programmes will have infection screening as part of their pre-entry health assessment, but no such system exists for those claiming asylum in the United Kingdom. In this article, we have reviewed published, peer-reviewed articles looking at the approaches to screening for NTDs and infectious diseases in the United Kingdom. In addition to this, we have reviewed the literature looking at the acceptability, barriers and facilitators of these screening practices. We found that there is a heterogeneous approach to screening practices in the United Kingdom and a paucity of data to support a single 'best practice' approach. Based on our findings, we have made recommendations and consideration for NTD screening strategies and highlighted important areas for future research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.