METHODS: We use qualitative data from 17 in-depth interviews conducted with key informants from civil society organisations, trade unions, academia, medical professionals, as well as migrant workers and their representatives. We interviewed doctors working in public hospitals and private clinics frequented by migrants. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: We found that healthcare services in Malaysia are often inaccessible to migrant workers. Complex access barriers were identified, many beyond the control of the health sector. Major themes include affordability and financial constraints, the need for legal documents like valid passports and work permits, language barriers, discrimination and xenophobia, physical inaccessibility and employer-related barriers. Our study suggests that government mandated insurance for migrant workers is insufficient in view of the recent increase in medical fees. The perceived close working relationship between the ministries of health and immigration effectively excludes undocumented migrants from access to public healthcare facilities. Language barriers may affect the quality of care received by migrant workers, by inadvertently resulting in medical errors, while preventing them from giving truly informed consent.
CONCLUSIONS: We propose instituting migrant-friendly health services at public facilities. We also suggest implementing a comprehensive health insurance to enable healthcare access and financial risk protection for all migrant workers. Non-health sector solutions include the formation of a multi-stakeholder migration management body towards a comprehensive national policy on labour migration which includes health.
METHODS: In-depth interviews, observations, informal conversational interviews, mystery client and critical incident technique were used. We estimated the size of FEW population using the census enumeration technique. The findings were used to inform intervention development and implementation.
RESULTS: We estimated 376 Vietnamese and 330 Thai FEWs in 2 geographical sites where they operated in Singapore. Their reasons for non-condom use included misconceptions on the transmission and consequences of STI/HIV, low risk perception of contracting HIV/STI from paid/casual partner, lack of skills to negotiate or to persuade partner to use condom, unavailability of condoms in entertainment establishments and fear of the police using condom as circumstantial evidence. They faced difficulties in accessing health services due to fear of identity exposure, stigmatisation, cost and language differences. To develop the intervention, we involved FEWs and peer educators, and ensured that the intervention was non-stigmatising and met their needs. To foster their participation, we used culturally-responsive recruitment strategies, and ensured that the trial was anonymous and acceptable to the FEWs. These strategies were effective as we achieved a participation rate of 90.3%, a follow-up rate of 70.5% for the comparison and 66.8% for the intervention group. The interventions group reported a significant increase in consistent condom use with a reduction in STI incidence compared to no significant change in the comparison group.
CONCLUSIONS: The qualitative inquiry approaches to gain access, to foster participation and to develop a culturally appropriate intervention, along with the census enumeration technique application to estimate the FEW population sizes has led to successful intervention implementation as well as safer sexual behaviour and STI incidence reduction.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02780986 . Registered 23 May 2016 (retrospectively registered).