ArticleJournal of global health2025
Monitoring and evaluation of community interventions for viral hepatitis among migrants and refugees: a Delphi-based study.
Article in Journal of global health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Migrants and refugees in Europe carry a disproportionate burden of chronic hepatitis B and C and face barriers accessing health systems. Community-based interventions can improve screening, prevention, and care, yet no framework exists to track their performance. This study aimed to generate a consensus set of indicators for monitoring and evaluating such interventions. Methods: A scoping review of PubMed from January 2005 to June 2024 identified 70 studies and 275 candidate indicators. After removing redundancies, 38 primary and 17 additional indicators were submitted to a two-round online Delphi panel. Fourteen experts from six countries (five from Spain, three from the UK, two each from Italy and from Greece, and one each from Belgium and the USA) rated each indicator on relevance, measurability, accuracy, ethics and clarity. Indicators with >67% combined 'agree/somewhat agree' were revised and advanced to Round 2 (R2), and were re-rated and ranked by experts. Results: Thirty-eight primary indicators and 10/17 additional indicators advanced to R2. Fifteen indicators were re-rated in R2; none were rejected. The final set comprised 50 indicators across six domains: Prevention (six), Testing (nine), Linkage to care (six), Treatment & Care (nine), Morbidity (seven) and Health System (13). Overall combined agreement averaged 95.3% (standard deviation = 7.0), with 29 indicators achieving unanimous support. Testing and Morbidity domains showed the strongest consensus. Ranking highlighted screening acceptability, infection prevalence, rapid testing results, referral success and treatment initiation as highest priorities. Conclusions: This Delphi study delivers the first consensus-driven indicator set for monitoring and evaluating community hepatitis B/C services targeting migrants and refugees. Adoption of the 50-indicator framework, and its streamlined core set, can harmonise monitoring, guide resource allocation and strengthen data-driven progress toward elimination goals. Registration: Open Science Framework.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.