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.

Understanding who is and isn't involved and engaged in health research: capturing and analysing demographic data to diversify patient and public involvement and engagement.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) can improve the relevance, quality, ethics and impact of research thus contributing to high quality research. Currently in the UK, people who get involved in research tend to be aged 61 years or above, White and female. Calls for greater diversity and inclusion in PPIE have become more urgent especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, so that research can better address health inequalities and be relevant for all sectors of society. Yet, there are currently no routine systems or requirements to collect or analyse the demographics of people who get involved in health research in the UK. The aim of this study was to develop to capture and analyse the characteristics of who does and doesn't take part in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) activities. METHODS: As part of its strategic focus on diversity and inclusion, Vocal developed a questionnaire to assess the demographics of people taking part in its PPIE activities. Vocal is a non-profit organisation which supports PPIE in health research across the region of Greater Manchester in England. The questionnaire was implemented across Vocal activities between December 2018 and March 2022. In that time. Vocal was working with approximately 935 public contributors. 329 responses were received: a return rate of 29.3%. Analysis of findings and comparison against local population demographic data, and available national data related to public contributors to health research, was performed. RESULTS: Results show that it is feasible to assess the demographics of people who take part in PPIE activities, through a questionnaire system. Further, our emerging data indicate that Vocal are involving people from a wider range of ages and with a greater diversity of ethnic backgrounds in health research, as compared to available national data. Specifically, Vocal involves more people of Asian, African and Caribbean heritage, and includes a wider range of ages in its PPIE activities. More women than men are involved in Vocal's work. CONCLUSION: Our 'learn by doing' approach to assessing who does and doesn't take part in Vocal's PPIE activities has informed our practice and continues influence our strategic priorities for PPIE. Our system and learning reported here may be applicable and transferable to other similar settings in which PPIE is carried out. We attribute the greater diversity of our public contributors to our strategic priority and activities to promote more inclusive research since 2018.

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) can improve the relevance, quality, ethics and impact of research thus contributing to high quality research. Currently in the UK, people who get involved in research tend to be aged 61 years or above, White and female. Calls for greater diversity and inclusion in PPIE have become more urgent especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, so that research can better address health inequalities and be relevant for all sectors of society. Yet, there are currently no routine systems or requirements to collect or analyse the demographics of people who get involved in health research in the UK. Vocal is a non-profit organisation which supports PPIE in health research across the region of Greater Manchester in England. Since 2018, one of Vocal's strategic priorities has been to promote inclusive research by diversifying those who are engaged and involved in research, through the development of more inclusive ways of working together, including methods to understand who is (and isn't) currently involved in Vocal's PPIE activities. We find that it's feasible to capture and analyse demographic data related to PPIE. Further, our emerging data indicate that we are involving people from a wider range of ages and with a greater diversity of ethnic backgrounds in PPIE for health research, as compared to available national data. However, similarly to national trends, more women than men are involved in PPIE work.

"We are not hard to reach, but we may find it hard to trust" . Involving and engaging 'seldom listened to' community voices in clinical translational health research: a social innovation approach.

BACKGROUND: Public involvement in clinical translational research is increasingly recognised as essential for relevant and reliable research. Public involvement must be diverse and inclusive to enable research that has the potential to reach those that stand to benefit from it the most, and thus address issues of health equity. Several recent reports, however, indicate that public involvement is exclusive, including in its interactions with ethnic groups. This paper outlines a novel community-led methodology - a community sandpit - to address the inclusion of ethnic groups in public involvement in research, reports on its evaluation, findings, legacy and impact. METHODS: Through detailed planning - thinking through and taking into account all stakeholders perspectives in the planning and design of the sandpit, relationship-building, co-design and co-delivery between the Public Programmes team based at Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust and the Greater Manchester Black and Minority Ethnic Network - the community sandpit was held in July 2018. RESULTS: Fifteen community organisations took part in the two-day event, as well as six researchers, and six creative practitioners. Six community-based partnership projects were seed-funded; four of these received additional funding from other sources also. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of the sandpit showed the format to be well-received by all: it levelled power relationships between community organisations, health researchers and research infrastructure; it developed capacity amongst researchers about the accessibility, role and potential of community organisations. Described as "not another community seed fund" by community partners, the sandpit offered community partners, equitable avenues for collaboration within Greater Manchester translational research and led to the formation of the Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Research Advisory Group (BRAG Vocal Website information, - https://www.wearevocal.org/opportunities/black-asian-and-minority-ethnic-research-advisory-group-brag/ , 2021). The method has the potential to be replicated elsewhere to support inclusive public involvement in research and inclusive research.

Public involvement in "bench to bedside" research (from laboratory-based research to clinical practice) is increasingly recognised as essential for relevant and reliable research. To enable the findings from health research to meet the needs of those who stand to benefit from it the most and to ensure that differences in health and disease are reduced as much as possible, public involvement must be diverse and inclusive. Recent reports, however, indicate that public involvement is exclusive, including in its interactions with racially minoritised groups. This paper outlines a novel community-led methodology ­ a community sandpit ­ to address the inclusion of ethnic groups in public involvement in research, reports on its evaluation, findings, legacy and impact.Through detailed planning ­ thinking through and taking into account all stakeholders perspectives in the planning and design of the sandpit, relationship-building, co-design and co-delivery between the Public Programmes Team (now Vocal) based at Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust worked with the Greater Manchester Black and Minority Ethnic Network - the community sandpit was held in July 2018. Fifteen community organisations took part in the two-day event, as well as six researchers, and six creative practitioners (artists with experience of working with the public on socially engaged projects to engage them in areas such as science). Six community-based partnership projects were seed-funded; four of these received additional funding from other sources. Evaluation of the sandpit showed the format to be well-received by all: it levelled power relationships between community organisations, health researchers and research infrastructure; it increased researchers knowledge and insights about the accessibility of community organisations and of how they might work effectively with them. Described as "not another community seed fund" by community partners, the sandpit began the process of levelling the playing field for collaboration between Greater Manchester translational research and local community organisations and led to the formation of the Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Research Advisory Group (BRAG) (Vocal Website information, - https://www.wearevocal.org/opportunities/black-asian-and-minority-ethnic-research-advisory-group-brag/ , 2021). The method has the potential to be repeated elsewhere to support inclusive public involvement in research and inclusive research.

Innovating public engagement and patient involvement through strategic collaboration and practice.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement and engagement is an important and expected component of health-related research activity in the UK. Specifically within the health research sphere, public engagement (usually defined as raising awareness of research) and patient involvement (usually defined as actively involving people in research) have traditionally been seen as separate but have much to gain from working together towards a common goal of better health outcomes for all. METHODS: This paper describes a unique approach taken by the Public Programmes Team: a small interdisciplinary team of public engagement specialists, with backgrounds in science, community development, public engagement and involvement, policy, ethics, communications, industry, museums and creative practice, embedded within translational research infrastructure and delivery in Manchester in the North West of England. We propose a new model of professional practice - a 'cycle' of engagement and involvement - innovating across the complementary fields of public engagement and patient involvement, and working inclusively and in partnership with people in health research. Further, our approach capitalises on strategic collaboration offering economies of scale and a joined up way of working. Our ambition is to boldly experiment, learn and reflect, responsibly and based on evidence and partnerships, using methods of engagement that address issues of social justice. RESULTS: Here, we report on preliminary case studies exemplifying the impact of our approach, and data relating to achievements and learning between April 2017 and March 2018. Informed by our findings, we propose that our approach has the potential to be replicated elsewhere. CONCLUSIONS: Our practice and the beginning of its evaluation lead us to believe that our way of working and model of professional practice - the 'cycle' of engagement and involvement - is effective in: addressing our vision of making health research relevant and inclusive for everyone; and embedding and joining up public involvement in a busy and fertile translational health research ecosystem.

What do young people with rheumatic disease believe to be important to research about their condition? A UK-wide study.

BACKGROUND: The involvement of people of all ages including young people in research is now widely advocated but prioritisation of research topics is still driven largely by professional agendas. Evidence from adult literature has reported a mismatch between a researcher and patient generated list of research topics. There have been no studies to date exploring the priorities of young people with long term conditions other than in SLE. The study aimed to explore the research priorities of young people across the UK with respect to rheumatic conditions. METHODS: Focus groups were undertaken with young people aged 11-24 years with rheumatic conditions recruited across the UK via members of the Barbara Ansell National Network for Adolescent Rheumatology BANNAR and relevant national charities. Data was analysed using a Framework approach. Participants discussed their beliefs about what should be researched in: Basic Science; Clinical Medicine; Health Services, Psychosocial, and Public Health. They were then invited to prioritize these areas in terms of how much funding they should receive. RESULTS: Thirteen focus groups were held involving 63 participants (18 males: 45 females, mean age 16 years, range 10 to 24) in all four nations of the UK. Young people's research priorities were influenced by whether they felt research would achieve benefits for all or just some patients and long or short term goals. Another influence was whether participants felt that research areas were already well funded. Across all groups, Basic Science was a key priority and participants felt that psychosocial research should be prioritized more. Health Services Research was a lower priority, as the majority of participants were happy with their care. Clinical medicine was not a high priority as young people were happy with their medication or uncomfortable with trying new ones. Finally, for nearly all groups, Public Health was a low priority. Differences were also observed between the two age groups and across the geographically diverse focus groups. CONCLUSION: Understanding young people's research priorities is important to develop research that is in tune with their needs. The results highlight the importance of considering the whole age range of adolescence and young adulthood as well as geographical diversity. The findings from this work will inform the future research of the Barbara Ansell National Network for Adolescent Rheumatology BANNAR in the UK.

What do pharmaceutical industry professionals in Europe believe about involving patients and the public in research and development of medicines? A qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore European-based pharmaceutical industry professionals' beliefs about patient and public involvement (PPI) in medicines research and development (R&D). SETTING: Pharmaceutical companies in the UK, Poland and Spain. PARTICIPANTS: 21 pharmaceutical industry professionals, four based in the UK, five with pan-European roles, four based in Spain and eight based in Poland. METHOD: Qualitative interview study (telephone and face-to-face, semistructured interviews). All interviews were audio taped, translated (where appropriate) and transcribed for analysis using the Framework approach. RESULTS: 21 pharmaceutical industry professionals participated. Key themes were: beliefs about (1) whether patients and the public should be involved in medicines R&D; (2) the barriers and facilitators to PPI in medicines R&D and (3) how the current relationships between the pharmaceutical industry, patient organisations and patients influence PPI in medicines R&D. CONCLUSIONS: Although interviewees appeared positive about PPI, many were uncertain about when, how and which patients to involve. Patients and the public's lack of knowledge and interest in medicines R&D, and the pharmaceutical industry's lack of knowledge, interest and receptivity to PPI were believed to be key challenges to increasing PPI. Interviewees also believed that relationships between the pharmaceutical industry, patient organisations, patients and the public needed to change to facilitate PPI in medicines R&D. Existing pharmaceutical industry codes of practice and negative media reporting of the pharmaceutical industry were also seen as negative influences on these relationships.

What the public knows and wants to know about medicines research and development: a survey of the general public in six European countries.

OBJECTIVES: To explore public knowledge of, and interest in, learning more about medicines R&D in six European countries. DESIGN: Online survey of 6931 members of the public across Europe. METHODS: The survey formed part of a public omnibus survey. A quota sampling approach was used with quotas set according to national census data on age, gender and government region. The survey explored the public's knowledge and awareness of medicines R&D, their interest in learning more and the perceived influences on this. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 6931 members of the public, over 75% of whom reported having no or less than good knowledge of medicines R&D. Males were more likely than females to report good knowledge (17% vs 15%), and knowledge appeared to decrease with age. Those who were currently or had previously been involved in medical research were almost five times more likely to report good knowledge of medicines R&D overall (43% vs 13%). Participants reported good knowledge of medicines safety and clinical trials but little knowledge of pharmacoeconomics. They were most interested in learning more about medicines safety and personalised and predictive medicine and least interested in pharmacoeconomics. Older people, women and respondents with current good knowledge of medicines R&D were most interested in learning more about medicines R&D. CONCLUSIONS: Experience of medical research appears to play a key role in increasing public awareness of and future interest in medicines R&D. Some groups may need to be specifically targeted to increase their awareness of medicines R&D, for example, women expressed great interest in learning more but reported less knowledge than men. It may be useful to explore further the views of those who are currently uninterested in learning more.