Intersectionality and public understandings of health inequity in England: learning from the views and experiences of young adults.

OBJECTIVES: Attempts to reduce health inequities in England frequently prioritise some equity dimensions over others. Intersectionality highlights how different dimensions of inequity interconnect and are underpinned by historic and institutionalised power imbalances. We aimed to explore whether intersectionality could help us shed light on young adults' understanding of health inequities. STUDY DESIGN: The study incorporatedqualitative thematic analysis of primary data. METHODS: Online focus groups with young adults (n = 25) aged 18-30 living in three English regions (Greater London; South Yorkshire/Midlands; North-East England) between July 2020 and March 2021. Online semistructured interviews (n = 2) and text-based communication was conducted for participants unable to attend online groups. RESULTS: Young adults described experiencing discrimination, privilege, and power imbalances driving health inequity and suggested ways to address this. Forms of inequity included cumulative, within group, interacting, and the experience of privilege alongside marginalisation. Young adults described discrimination occurring in settings relevant to social determinants of health and said it adversely affected health and well-being. CONCLUSION: Intersectionality, with its focus on discrimination and identity, can help public health stakeholders engage with young adults on health equity. An upstream approach to improving health equity should consider multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination along with their cultural and institutional drivers.

Implementing guidelines and training initiatives to improve cross-cultural communication in primary care consultations: a qualitative participatory European study.

BACKGROUND: Cross-cultural communication in primary care is often difficult, leading to unsatisfactory, substandard care. Supportive evidence-based guidelines and training initiatives (G/TIs) exist to enhance cross cultural communication but their use in practice is sporadic. The objective of this paper is to elucidate how migrants and other stakeholders can adapt, introduce and evaluate such G/TIs in daily clinical practice. METHODS: We undertook linked qualitative case studies to implement G/TIs focused on enhancing cross cultural communication in primary care, in five European countries. We combined Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) as an analytical framework, with Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) as the research method to engage migrants, primary healthcare providers and other stakeholders. Across all five sites, 66 stakeholders participated in 62 PLA-style focus groups over a 19 month period, and took part in activities to adapt, introduce, and evaluate the G/TIs. Data, including transcripts of group meetings and researchers' fieldwork reports, were coded and thematically analysed by each team using NPT. RESULTS: In all settings, engaging migrants and other stakeholders was challenging but feasible. Stakeholders made significant adaptations to the G/TIs to fit their local context, for example, changing the focus of a G/TI from palliative care to mental health; or altering the target audience from General Practitioners (GPs) to the wider multidisciplinary team. They also progressed plans to deliver them in routine practice, for example liaising with GP practices regarding timing and location of training sessions and to evaluate their impact. All stakeholders reported benefits of the implemented G/TIs in daily practice. Training primary care teams (clinicians and administrators) resulted in a more tolerant attitude and more effective communication, with better focus on migrants' needs. Implementation of interpreter services was difficult mainly because of financial and other resource constraints. However, when used, migrants were more likely to trust the GP's diagnoses and GPs reported a clearer understanding of migrants' symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Migrants, primary care providers and other key stakeholders can work effectively together to adapt and implement G/TIs to improve communication in cross-cultural consultations, and enhance understanding and trust between GPs and migrant patients.

Is communication guidance mistaken? Qualitative study of parent-oncologist communication in childhood cancer.

BACKGROUND: Guidance encourages oncologists to engage patients and relatives in discussing the emotions that accompany cancer diagnosis and treatment. We investigated the perspectives of parents of children with leukaemia on the role of paediatric oncologists in such discussion. METHODS: Qualitative study comprising 33 audio-recorded parent-oncologist consultations and semi-structured interviews with 67 parents during the year following diagnosis. RESULTS: Consultations soon after the diagnosis were largely devoid of overt discussion of parental emotion. Interviewed parents did not describe a need for such discussion. They spoke of being comforted by oncologists' clinical focus, by the biomedical information they provided and by their calmness and constancy. When we explicitly asked parents 1 year later about the oncologists' role in emotional support, they overwhelmingly told us that they did not want to discuss their feelings with oncologists. They wanted to preserve the oncologists' focus on their child's clinical care, deprecated anything that diverted from this and spoke of the value of boundaries in the parent-oncologist relationship. CONCLUSION: Parents were usually comforted by oncologists, but this was not achieved in the way suggested by communication guidance. Communication guidance would benefit from an enhanced understanding of how emotional support is experienced by those who rely on it.