Search

Background: The response to the COVID-19 pandemic saw a significant increase in demand for the voluntary, community, faith and social enterprise (VCFSE) sector to provide support to local communities. In Greater Manchester (GM), the VCFSE sector and informal networks provided health and wellbeing support in multiple ways, culminating in its crucial supportive role in the provision of the COVID-19 vaccination rollout across the GM city region. However, the support provided by the VCFSE sector during the pandemic remains under-recognised. The aims of the study were to: understand the views and experiences of marginalised communities in GM during the COVID-19 pandemic; explore how community engagement initiatives played a role during the pandemic and vaccine rollout; assess what can be learnt from the work of key stakeholders (community members, VCFSEs, health-system stakeholders) for future health research and service delivery. Methods: The co-designed study utilised a participatory approach throughout and was co-produced with a Community Research Advisory Group (CRAG). Focus groups and semi-structured interviews were conducted remotely between September-November 2021, with 35 participants from local marginalised communities, health and care system stakeholders and VCFSE representatives. Thematic framework analysis was used to analyse the data. Results: Local communities in GM were not supported sufficiently by mainstream services during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in increased pressure onto the VCFSE sector to respond to local communities' need. Community-based approaches were deemed crucial to the success of the vaccination drive and in providing support to local communities more generally during the pandemic, whereby such approaches were in a unique position to reach members of diverse communities to boost uptake of the vaccine. Despite this, the support delivered by the VCFSE sector remains under-recognised and under-valued by the health system and decision-makers. Conclusions: A number of challenges associated with collaborative working were experienced by the VSCE sector and health system in delivering the vaccination programme in partnership with the VCFSE sector. There is a need to create a broader, more inclusive health system which allows and promotes inter-sectoral working. Flexibility and adaptability in ongoing and future service delivery should be championed for greater cross-sector working. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are clear inequalities in COVID − 19 vaccination rates amongst marginalised groups, with lower rates for some minoritised ethnic and religious groups, younger people, those living in more deprived areas, and with lower socio-economic status. Existing research focuses on psychological and socio-economic factors that influence vaccine uptake and does not explore broader social and historical contexts. Understanding inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake requires a critical examination of the drivers of, and barriers to, vaccination. Methods: We present findings from a co-designed qualitative research study undertaken during the COVID-19 pandemic. Focus groups and interviews were used to examine the context underpinning responses to the COVID-19 vaccination in Greater Manchester, particularly focussing on experiences of marginalisation. Thematic framework analysis was used to analyse the data. Results: We found that the public's responses to the COVID-19 vaccination programme are intertwined with a longstanding history of institutional distrust and disenfranchisement, resulting from experiences of marginalisation and social inequalities. This was exacerbated further by the disproportionate impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on minoritised ethnic groups, younger people, and those with existing health conditions. Conclusions: Histories of structural inequalities experienced by minoritised groups invoked feelings of suspicion and scepticism at the motivations of the agencies behind the vaccination rollout. This highlights the need for a contextualised analysis of attitudes to vaccines, considering pre-existing inequalities, which may be especially relevant for conceptualising public responses to the vaccination programme. Finally, our study shows the important ways in which public (dis)trust can impact public health policies. We recommend this should be incorporated into responses to future public health crises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is integral to research on patient safety in the NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (NIHR GMPSTRC), and is central to our patient safety research within our theme focusing on people in marginalised groups. Due to the impact of COVID-19, researchers had to adapt how they do PPI. For marginalised groups, remote working and digital adaptations (the key adaptations made in accessing and utilising health services in the United Kingdom during COVID-19) can potentially lead to further marginalisation of people already marginalised and provide new barriers to others. This editorial showcases three case examples of PPI with marginalised groups during COVID-19, these are with: (1) adults with vision impairments, (2) adults and carers with lived experience of self-harm and/ or suicide and (3) adults with lived experience of homelessness. In these case examples, we focus on challenges relating to key aspects of PPI during the pandemic. First, setting up a PPI advisory group and secondly maintaining relationships and effective PPI with a pre-existing advisory group. We contrast these examples using more traditional ways of 'doing PPI' i.e. involving public contributors in various stages of the research cycle, with a more fully 'co-produced' approach to research when developing a new patient safety intervention. Important considerations for PPI with marginalised groups during COVID-19 include: how to avoid exacerbating the digital divide when using video conferencing for PPI, the need for enhanced awareness around flexibility and resources, and the value of working closely with specialist charities to enable adaptations that are sensitive to the changed circumstances and needs of PPI contributors. Plain English summary: The National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational research Centre (GMPSTRC) carries out research to improve patient safety. We work in partnership with patients and members of the public to plan, manage, design, and carry out the research. This is labelled as patient and public involvement. A key area of GMPSTRC research focuses on people who may be marginalised from healthcare and potentially suffer increased patient safety risks relative to the general population. COVID-19 impacted on research in multiple ways, notably how researchers work with members of the public. Remote working via the use of internet enabled technology has now become more commonplace, although this raises concerns about digital exclusion and how to address barriers when face-to-face PPI is not possible. This article showcases three examples of how researchers and public contributors with lived experience have adapted to working together during the COVID-19 pandemic. These case examples are: (1) setting up a public involvement group for developing an intervention to reduce medication errors for adults with vision impairments; (2) working with a pre-existing group of public contributors who are adults and carers with lived experience of self-harm and/or suicide; and (3) working with a charity called Groundswell who train and support researchers with lived experience of homelessness. Challenges during COVID-19 have been making video conferencing meetings accessible to members who have a range of different needs, and addressing the digital divide by allowing members flexibility in how they contribute to research. The article provides examples of how these challenges were addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: COVID-19 vaccine uptake is lower amongst most minority ethnic groups compared to the White British group in England, despite higher COVID-19 mortality rates. Here, we add to existing evidence by estimating inequalities for 16 minority ethnic groups, examining ethnic inequalities within population subgroups, and comparing the magnitudes of ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake to those for routine seasonal influenza vaccine uptake.Methods and Findings: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Greater Manchester Care Record, which contains de-identified electronic health record data for the population of Greater Manchester, England. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate ethnic inequalities in time to COVID-19 vaccination amongst people eligible for vaccination on health or age (50+ years) criteria between 1 December 2020 and 18 April 2021 (138 days of follow-up). We included vaccination with any approved COVID-19 vaccine, and analysed first-dose vaccination only. We compared inequalities between COVID-19 and influenza vaccine uptake adjusting by age group and clinical risk, and used subgroup analysis to identify populations where inequalities were widest. The majority of individuals (871,231; 79.24%) were White British. The largest minority ethnic groups were Pakistani (50,268; 4.75%), 'other White background' (43,195; 3.93%), 'other ethnic group' (34,568; 3.14%), and Black African (18,802; 1.71%). In total, 83.64% (919,636/1,099,503) of eligible individuals received a COVID-19 vaccine. Uptake was lower compared to the White British group for 15 of 16 minority ethnic groups, with particularly wide inequalities amongst the groups 'other Black background' (hazard ratio [HR] 0.42, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.44), Black African (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.44), Arab (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.48), and Black Caribbean (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.45). In total, 55.71% (419,314/752,715) of eligible individuals took up influenza vaccination. Compared to the White British group, inequalities in influenza vaccine uptake were widest amongst the groups 'White and Black Caribbean' (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.68) and 'White and Black African' (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.72). In contrast, uptake was slightly higher than the White British group amongst the groups 'other ethnic group' (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.12) and Bangladeshi (HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.11). Overall, ethnic inequalities in vaccine uptake were wider for COVID-19 than influenza vaccination for 15 of 16 minority ethnic groups. COVID-19 vaccine uptake inequalities also existed amongst individuals who previously took up influenza vaccination. Ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake were concentrated amongst older and extremely clinically vulnerable adults, and the most income-deprived. A limitation of this study is the focus on uptake of the first dose of COVID-19 vaccination, rather than full COVID-19 vaccination.Conclusions: Ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake exceeded those for influenza vaccine uptake, existed amongst those recently vaccinated against influenza, and were widest amongst those with greatest COVID-19 risk. This suggests the COVID-19 vaccination programme has created additional and different inequalities beyond pre-existing health inequalities. We suggest that further research and policy action is needed to understand and remove barriers to vaccine uptake, and to build trust and confidence amongst minority ethnic communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]