Series: Public engagement with research. Part 2: GPs and primary care researchers working inclusively with minoritised communities in health research to help address inequalities.

Public engagement in health research is vital for addressing health disparities and promoting inclusivity among minoritised communities who often face barriers to accessing healthcare. Minoritised communities are groups, which have been made minorities by a dominant culture, race, ethnic group and/or social class and may experience health inequalities as a result. By incorporating diverse perspectives and lived experiences of minoritised communities, this approach aims to achieve contextually relevant research outcomes that reduce health inequalities and improve overall well-being. However, underrepresentation and lack of inclusivity challenges persist, necessitating the establishment of inclusive partnerships and grassroots participatory methodologies.To foster inclusive public engagement, it is important to overcome structural and cultural barriers, address socioeconomic challenges, and build trust with minoritised communities. This can be achieved by promoting a cultural shift that values inclusivity, providing comprehensive training to researchers, and collecting rigorous data on engagement demographics for transparency and accountability. Involving minoritised communities in decision-making through participatory research approaches enhances trust and yields successful outcomes. Additionally, allocating sufficient resources, collaborating in co-production, and prioritising the diverse needs and perspectives of stakeholders contribute to fostering inclusive public engagement in research.Overall, inclusive engagement practices particularly in primary care research have the potential to reduce health inequalities and cater to the unique requirements of minoritised communities, thereby creating more impactful outcomes and promoting equitable healthcare access.

There is an important need to engage with minoritised communities in primary care researchEngaging diverse communities in research helps produce relevant research to address health inequalities.The exclusion of minoritised communities from research can be addressed by taking action towards more inclusive engagement.

Public acceptability of a technology-mediated stool sample collection platform to inform community-based surveillance of infectious intestinal disease: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: In the UK approximately a quarter of the population experience infectious intestinal disease (IID) each year. However, only 2% present to primary care, preventing a true determination of community burden and pathogen aetiology. The aim of this pilot study was to gauge public acceptability of a technology-mediated platform for reporting episodes of IID and for providing stool samples. METHODS: This study employed a cross-sectional online survey design, targeting individuals 16 + years old within Liverpool City Region, UK. Information sought included demographics, comfortability of reporting illness and IID symptoms, willingness to provide stool, and favoured stool-provision method. Univariable logistic regression was used to examine associations between demographic variables and providing a stool sample. Odds ratios (OR) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were produced. RESULTS: A total of 174 eligible participants completed the survey, with 69% female. The sample was skewed towards younger populations, with 2.9% aged 65 + years. Nearly a third (29%) had a household income of less than £30,000 per annum and 70% had attained a degree or higher. The majority identified as White British (81%) and 11% identified as ethnicities typically grouped Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME). Three quarters of participants were either 'Comfortable' or 'Very Comfortable' with reporting illness (75%) and with answering symptom-related questions (79%); 78% reported that they would provide a stool sample. Upon univariable analysis, increasing age - being 55 + (OR 6.28, 95% CI 1.15-117.48), and lower income (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.02-6.60), was associated with willingness to provide a stool sample. Additionally, respondents identifying as BAME ethnicities and men may be less inclined to provide a stool sample. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study assessed the acceptability of technology-mediated platforms for reporting IID and provision of stool samples in the community. Respondents were biased towards younger, technologically inclined, more affluent and educated populations. Acceptability for reporting illness and providing a stool sample through technology-mediated platforms was high. While older populations were under-represented, they were more likely to agree to provide a stool sample. Qualitative research is required to better reach older and more deprived populations, and to understand potential age, gender and ethnic differences in compliance with stool sampling.

Remote care in UK general practice: baseline data on 11 case studies.

Background: Accessing and receiving care remotely (by telephone, video or online) became the default option during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but in-person care has unique benefits in some circumstances. We are studying UK general practices as they try to balance remote and in-person care, with recurrent waves of COVID-19 and various post-pandemic backlogs. Methods: Mixed-methods (mostly qualitative) case study across 11 general practices. Researchers-in-residence have built relationships with practices and become familiar with their contexts and activities; they are following their progress for two years via staff and patient interviews, documents and ethnography, and supporting improvement efforts through co-design. In this paper, we report baseline data. Results: Reflecting our maximum-variety sampling strategy, the 11 practices vary in size, setting, ethos, staffing, population demographics and digital maturity, but share common contextual features-notably system-level stressors such as high workload and staff shortages, and UK's technical and regulatory infrastructure. We have identified both commonalities and differences between practices in terms of how they: 1] manage the 'digital front door' (access and triage) and balance demand and capacity; 2] strive for high standards of quality and safety; 3] ensure digital inclusion and mitigate wider inequalities; 4] support and train their staff (clinical and non-clinical), students and trainees; 5] select, install, pilot and use technologies and the digital infrastructure which support them; and 6] involve patients in their improvement efforts. Conclusions: General practices' responses to pandemic-induced disruptive innovation appear unique and situated. We anticipate that by focusing on depth and detail, this longitudinal study will throw light on why a solution that works well in one practice does not work at all in another. As the study unfolds, we will explore how practices achieve timely diagnosis of urgent or serious illness and manage continuity of care, long-term conditions and complex needs.

We describe early results from the Remote by Default 2 study, which is following 11 UK general practices for two years as they introduce various kinds of remote appointment booking and clinical consultations. We have been using interviews and ethnography (watching real-world activities), and analysing documents (such as practice reports and websites) to prepare case studies of the 11 practices, which vary widely in size, ethos, geographical location, practice population and digital maturity. Our initial interviews identified the following cross-cutting themes, which showed both commonalities and differences across the 11 practices: - The 'digital front door' (patients gaining access using digital portals), which was used to a greater or lesser extent in all practices; some found these systems frustrating and inefficient.- Quality and safety. Staff were concerned about the risk of missing an important diagnosis when consulting remotely, and felt that digitisation could threaten continuity of care.- Digital inclusion. All practices were keen to ensure that patients who lacked digital devices or skills were not disadvantaged; this goal was achieved in different ways (and to different degrees) in different settings.- Staff support and training. Some practices are finding current workload unsustainable due to (among other things) rising patient demand, unfilled staff posts, a post-pandemic backlog of unmet need, and task-shifting from secondary care. Digitisation appears to have increased workload in most practices.- Technologies and infrastructure. The IT infrastructure in each practice had grown in a particular way over time, and was in this sense 'path-dependent' (hence, not easily changed). In conclusion, different practices are responding to the 'disruptive innovation' of digital technologies in very different ways, reflecting their different practice populations, settings and priorities. We plan to follow the above themes over time and explore additional themes including the experience and role of patients.

Protocol: Remote care as the 'new normal'? Multi-site case study in UK general practice.

Background: Following a pandemic-driven shift to remote service provision, UK general practices offer telephone, video or online consultation options alongside face-to-face. This study explores practices' varied experiences over time as they seek to establish remote forms of accessing and delivering care. Methods: This protocol is for a mixed-methods multi-site case study with co-design and national stakeholder engagement. 11 general practices were selected for diversity in geographical location, size, demographics, ethos, and digital maturity. Each practice has a researcher-in-residence whose role is to become familiar with its context and activity, follow it longitudinally for two years using interviews, public-domain documents and ethnography, and support improvement efforts. Research team members meet regularly to compare and contrast across cases. Practice staff are invited to join online learning events. Patient representatives work locally within their practice patient involvement groups as well as joining an online patient learning set or linking via a non-digital buddy system. NHS Research Ethics Approval has been granted. Governance includes a diverse independent advisory group with lay chair. We also have policy in-reach (national stakeholders sit on our advisory group) and outreach (research team members sit on national policy working groups). Results anticipated: We expect to produce rich narratives of contingent change over time, addressing cross-cutting themes including access, triage and capacity; digital and wider inequities; quality and safety of care (e.g. continuity, long-term condition management, timely diagnosis, complex needs); workforce and staff wellbeing (including non-clinical staff, students and trainees); technologies and digital infrastructure; patient perspectives; and sustainability (e.g. carbon footprint). Conclusion: By using case study methods focusing on depth and detail, we hope to explain why digital solutions that work well in one practice do not work at all in another. We plan to inform policy and service development through inter-sectoral network-building, stakeholder workshops and topic-focused policy briefings.

The pandemic required general practices to introduce remote (phone, video and email) consultations. That policy undoubtedly saved lives at the time but there are also clear benefits of face-to-face consultations in some circumstances, and the exact role of remote care still needs to be worked out. Despite best efforts, remote care tends to worsen health inequities (people who were poor or less well educated are less able to access and navigate the system and secure the type of appointment they need or prefer). Workstream 1: We will look at 11 GP surgeries across England, Scotland and Wales. We have selected a variety of sites: urban and rural, serving a range of different communities. Each surgery has a different approach to technology. A researcher from our team will work alongside surgery staff to learn what methods and technologies each practice uses to deliver care. They will gather information (mostly qualitative) about how different technological solutions are playing out over time. Workstream 2: Many people experience barriers to accessing care when it is done through technology. This could be because they lack understanding of how to do it, don't have the right equipment, can't afford data, or other reasons. We will ask patients about their experiences and work with them and staff to develop ideas about how to overcome barriers. Workstream 3: We will take what we have learnt in Workstreams 1 and 2 to make suggestions to inform national stakeholders and to influence policymakers. Patients and members of the public helped shape the research design. They continue to help guide our research by reading our reports, giving us their opinions and advising on how best to share our research so everyone can benefit from what we have learnt. Our governance panel is chaired by a member of the public.