Search

Background: Big data research requires public support. It has been argued that this can be achieved by public involvement and engagement to ensure that public views are at the centre of research projects. Researchers should aim to include diverse communities, including seldom‐heard voices, to ensure that a range of voices are heard and that research is meaningful to them. Objective: We explored how researchers involve and engage seldom‐heard communities around big data research. Methods: This is a qualitative study. Researchers who had experience of involving or engaging seldom‐heard communities in big data research were recruited. They were based in England (n = 5), Scotland (n = 4), Belgium (n = 2) and Canada (n = 1). Twelve semistructured interviews were conducted on Zoom. All interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed, and we used reflexive thematic analysis to analyse participants' experiences. Results: The analysis highlighted the complexity of involving and engaging seldom‐heard communities around big data research. Four themes were developed to represent participants' experiences: (1) abstraction and complexity of big data, (2) one size does not fit all, (3) working in partnership and (4) empowering the public contribution. Conclusion: The study offers researchers a better understanding of how to involve and engage seldom‐heard communities in a meaningful way around big data research. There is no one right approach, with involvement and engagement activities required to be project‐specific and dependent on the public contributors, researchers' needs, resources and time available. Patient and Public Involvement: Two public contributors are authors of the paper and they were involved in the study design, analysis and writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As digital tools are increasingly used to support COVID‐19 contact tracing, the equity implications must be considered. As part of a study to understand the public's views of digital contact tracing tools developed for the national 'Test and Protect' programme in Scotland, we aimed to explore the views of groups often excluded from such discussions. This paper reports on their views about the potential for contact tracing to exacerbate inequalities. Methods: A qualitative study was carried out; interviews were conducted with key informants from organizations supporting people in marginalized situations, followed by interviews and focus groups with people recruited from these groups. Participants included, or represented, minority ethnic groups, asylum seekers and refugees and those experiencing multiple disadvantage including severe and enduring poverty. Results: A total of 42 people participated: 13 key informants and 29 members of the public. While public participants were supportive of contact tracing, key informants raised concerns. Both sets of participants spoke about how contact tracing, and its associated digital tools, might increase inequalities. Barriers included finances (inability to afford smartphones or the data to ensure access to the internet); language (digital tools were available only in English and required a degree of literacy, even for English speakers); and trust (many marginalized groups distrusted statutory organizations and there were concerns that data may be passed to other organizations). One strength was that NHS Scotland, the data guardian, is seen as a generally trustworthy organization. Poverty was recognized as a barrier to people's ability to self‐isolate. Some participants were concerned about giving contact details of individuals who might struggle to self‐isolate for financial reasons. Conclusions: The impact of contact tracing and associated digital tools on marginalized populations needs careful monitoring. This should include the contact tracing process and the ability of people to self‐isolate. Regular clear messaging from trusted groups and community members could help maintain trust and participation in the programme. Patient and Public Contribution: Our patient and public involvement coapplicant, L. L., was involved in all aspects of the study including coauthorship. Interim results were presented to our local Public and Patient Involvement and Engagement Group, who commented on interpretation and made suggestions about further recruitment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The aim of this study was to uncover perspectives on the COVID‐19 pandemic and the responses implemented by the UK and Scottish Governments to help control the spread of infection. Such understanding could help to inform future responses to pandemics at individual, community and national levels. Method: Q methodology was used to elicit perspectives from people in England and Scotland with different experiences of the pandemic including public health officials, key workers, those on furlough, those who were unvaccinated or vaccinated to different levels, those who were 'shielding' because they were at higher risk and people with different scientific expertise. Participants rank‐ordered phrases about different aspects of COVID‐19 according to their viewpoint. Factor analysis was then conducted in conjunction with interview material from the same respondents. Results: A four‐factor solution was statistically supported and was interpretable alongside the qualitative accounts of participants loading on these factors. These four perspectives are titled Dangerous and Unaccountable Leadership, Fear and Anger at Policy and Public responses, Governing Through a Crisis and Injustices Exposed. Conclusion: The four perspectives demonstrate plurality and nuance in views on COVID‐19 and the associated policies and restrictions, going beyond a binary narrative that has been apparent in popular and social media. The four perspectives include some areas of common ground, as well as disagreement. We argue that understanding the detail of different perspectives might be used to build cohesion around policy initiatives in future. Patient or Public Contribution: The development of the statement set, which is rank‐ordered by participants in a Q study, and factor interpretations were informed by views of the general public. The statement set was initially developed using existing publicly available material based on members of the general public experiencing the pandemic first hand. It was then piloted with members of the public experiencing different challenges as a result of COVID‐19 and the subsequent lockdown and updated based on feedback. Finally, interpretations of the identified factors were presented publicly and edited according to their feedback. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The introduction of screening in the UK and other high‐income countries led to a significant decrease in the incidence of cervical cancer and increase in survival rates. Minority ethnic groups are often underrepresented in screening participation for reasons that are poorly understood. Objective: To explore experiences of cervical screening participation and non‐participation of women from minority ethnic populations in Scotland and gain insights to support the development of interventions that could potentially support screening participation and thereby reduce inequalities. Design: Qualitative comparison group study using in‐depth, semi‐structured individual interviews that were thematically analysed. Setting and participants: This study took place in Scotland. Fifty women were purposively sampled from four ethnic minority groups: South Asian; East European; Chinese; and Black African or Caribbean. White Scottish women were also interviewed. Results: Many experiences described were common regardless of ethnicity, such as difficulties managing competing priorities, including work and care responsibilities. However, important differences existed across the groups. These included going abroad for more frequent screening, delayed introduction to screening and not accessing primary care services, language difficulties in health‐care settings despite proficiency in English and not being sexually active at screening commencement. Experiences of racism, ignorance and feeling shamed were also reported. Conclusions: Key differences exist in the experience of minority ethnic groups in Scotland. These offer potential opportunities to reduce disparity and support screening participation including maximizing co‐incidental interactions and developing outreach work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes using a guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBt) reduce CRC mortality. Interval cancers are diagnosed between screening rounds: reassurance from a negative gFOBt has the potential to influence the pathway to diagnosis of an interval colorectal cancer. Methods: Twenty‐six semi‐structured face‐to‐face interviews were carried out in Scotland and England, with individuals diagnosed with an interval colorectal cancer following a negative gFOBt result. Results: Participants reported they were reassured by a negative gFOBt, interpreting their result as an “all clear”. Therefore, most did not suspect cancer as a possible cause of symptoms and many did not recall their screening result during symptom appraisal. Among those who did consider cancer, and did think about their screening test result, reassurance from a negative gFOBt led some to “downplay” the seriousness of their symptoms with some interviewees explicitly stating that their negative test result contributed to a delayed decision to seek help. Conclusion: Screening participants need to be informed of the limitations of screening and the ongoing risk of developing colorectal cancer even when in receipt of a negative result: the importance of minimizing delay in seeking medical advice for colorectal symptoms should be emphasized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Little is known about peoples' self-management experiences and their desires or expectations to engage in self-management. As such, there is little understanding about individuals' perceived cues and barriers to engagement in self-management, particularly in people affected by cancer. Objective To understand cues and barriers to people's engagement in self-management during chemotherapy treatment for colorectal cancer. Design Secondary analysis of qualitative data from mixed methods, longitudinal study. Setting and participants Eleven participants undergoing treatment for colorectal cancer. Semi-structured interviews were conducted twice with each participant, at the start and end of a 6-month course of chemotherapy treatment in a Scottish cancer centre. Results Cues and barriers to engagement in self-management appeared to stem from perceptions of the impact and associated severity of side effects experiences as well as the perceptions about the efficacy of chosen self-management activities and perceptions of control in minimizing the consequences of cancer treatment. Severe, episodic or unexpected side effects coupled with perceptions of uncertainty, lack of control and lack of adequate preparation to engage in self-management were identified as key barriers to engagement. Discussion and conclusion Participants' reflection on, or appraisal of, their treatment-related experiences and personal abilities, confidence and preferences to manage the impact of these shaped their subsequent engagement in self-management. The findings highlight the importance of understanding individual's self-management experiences, perceptions, preferences, priorities and needs to help support, prepare and enable them to feel capable and confident to engage actively and effectively in self-management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Socioeconomically deprived women are at greater risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Research tends to focus on access of services. Yet access may not equate with the equity of services for women from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Objectives To determine whether pregnant women's perceptions of antenatal provision differed in relation to their socioeconomic deprivation ranking (determined by the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2006). Design A longitudinal, qualitative study with comparative antenatal case studies between January 2007 and April 2009. Setting/Participants Cases were primigravida women from 'least deprived' ( n = 9) and 'most deprived' ( n = 12) geographical areas within one local authority in Scotland. Analysis Data were analysed using case study replication analysis. Results There was little difference in access to antenatal services between the 'least' and 'most' deprived groups. Perception of care differed in relation to the level of 'engagement' (defined using constructs of: language and personalization of care; power and relationships; and health literacy). Engagement was evidenced in most of the 'least deprived' cases and almost none of the 'most deprived' cases. Specifically, socioeconomically deprived women described less evidence of personal connection to their own care, effective communication and the opportunity for shared decision making. Conclusion In women from socioeconomically deprived areas, access may be a less useful indicator than engagement when assessing antenatal service quality. As engagement levels may be one method by which to predict and improve health outcomes, a more equitable antenatal service may need to be developed through the early identification of those women at risk of non-engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]