Qualitative interviews to understand methods and systems used to collect ethnicity information in health administrative data sources in England.

Background: This article is one of a series aiming to inform analytical methods to improve comparability of estimates of ethnic health disparities based on different sources. This article explores the quality of ethnicity data and identifies potential sources of bias when ethnicity information is collected in three key NHS data sources. Future research can build on these findings to explore analytical methods to mitigate biases. Methods: Thematic analysis of semi-structured qualitative interviews to explore potential sources of error and bias in the process of collecting ethnicity information across three NHS data sources: General Practice Extraction Service (GPES) Data for Pandemic Planning and Research (GDPPR), Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT). The study included feedback from 22 experts working on different aspects of health admin data collection for England (including staff from NHS Digital, IT system suppliers and relevant healthcare service providers). Results: Potential sources of error and bias were identified across data collection, data processing and quality assurance processes. Similar issues were identified for all three sources. Our analysis revealed three main themes which can result in bias and inaccuracies in ethnicity data recorded: data infrastructure challenges, human challenges, and institutional challenges. Conclusions: Findings highlighted that analysts using health admin data should be aware of the main sources of potential error and bias in health admin data, and be mindful that the main sources of error identified are more likely to affect the ethnicity data for ethnic minority groups. Where possible, analysts should describe and seek to account for this bias in their research.

Coherence of marine alien species biosecurity legislation: A study of England and Wales.

The marine environment is particularly at risk from the intentional and unintentional introduction and spread of invasive alien species (IAS); preventing their introduction and spread from occurring is therefore, a key component in the on-going management of marine IAS. Ensuring legislation is coherent and consistent is essential to the success of managing the existing and future impacts of marine IAS. We explore the coherence (determined as consistency and interaction) of marine biosecurity legislation for IAS at different geopolitical scales. There was consistency between both the Bern Convention and Convention on Biological Diversity and European and national legislation that had been created in response. There was a lack of interaction evidenced by the Ballast Water Management Convention, which had not yet been transposed into regional (mainly European) or national legislation. Implementation measures such as legislation should be coherent as any failure in the chain could potentially weaken the overall effort to establish and maintain biosecurity and achieve behaviour change.