7,746
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Enabling participation of Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) and seldom-heard communities in health research: A case study from the SCAMP adolescent cohort study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Our inquiry investigated the barriers to, and facilitators for, the involvement of Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) and ‘seldom-heard’ communities, in a study researching the impact of mobile phone and wireless device usage on adolescents’ cognition, behaviour and mental health. The aim was to co-produce solutions to increase participation, and we used focus groups, telephone interviews, a community event and a public and patient involvement (PPI) café to conduct the inquiry. Five themes emerged from the data: two enablers – the value and benefits of research; and three barriers – concerns about research and about communication, and practical constraints. A central cross-cutting theme, the concept of trust, was evident from the data, and extended across all themes, including across the solutions to non-participation. When the data collection and analysis were completed, we ran a symposium for researchers and members of the public to share our findings and to co-produce solutions. The symposium generated ideas about improving participation, including tailoring participant information, engaging with local advocates and involving people in research design and delivery.

          Most cited references65

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book Chapter: not found

          Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to minority research participation among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders.

            To assess the experienced or perceived barriers and facilitators to health research participation for major US racial/ethnic minority populations, we conducted a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative studies from a search on PubMed and Web of Science from January 2000 to December 2011. With 44 articles included in the review, we found distinct and shared barriers and facilitators. Despite different expressions of mistrust, all groups represented in these studies were willing to participate for altruistic reasons embedded in cultural and community priorities. Greater comparative understanding of barriers and facilitators to racial/ethnic minorities' research participation can improve population-specific recruitment and retention strategies and could better inform future large-scale prospective quantitative and in-depth ethnographic studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Incorporating intersectionality theory into population health research methodology: challenges and the potential to advance health equity.

              Intersectionality theory, developed to address the non-additivity of effects of sex/gender and race/ethnicity but extendable to other domains, allows for the potential to study health and disease at different intersections of identity, social position, processes of oppression or privilege, and policies or institutional practices. Intersectionality has the potential to enrich population health research through improved validity and greater attention to both heterogeneity of effects and causal processes producing health inequalities. Moreover, intersectional population health research may serve to both test and generate new theories. Nevertheless, its implementation within health research to date has been primarily through qualitative research. In this paper, challenges to incorporation of intersectionality into population health research are identified or expanded upon. These include: 1) confusion of quantitative terms used metaphorically in theoretical work with similar-sounding statistical methods; 2) the question of whether all intersectional positions are of equal value, or even of sufficient value for study; 3) distinguishing between intersecting identities, social positions, processes, and policies or other structural factors; 4) reflecting embodiment in how processes of oppression and privilege are measured and analysed; 5) understanding and utilizing appropriate scale for interactions in regression models; 6) structuring interaction or risk modification to best convey effects, and; 7) avoiding assumptions of equidistance or single level in the design of analyses. Addressing these challenges throughout the processes of conceptualizing and planning research and in conducting analyses has the potential to improve researchers' ability to more specifically document inequalities at varying intersectional positions, and to study the potential individual- and group-level causes that may drive these observed inequalities. A greater and more thoughtful incorporation of intersectionality can promote the creation of evidence that is directly useful in population-level interventions such as policy changes, or that is specific enough to be applicable within the social contexts of affected communities. Copyright © 2014 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                rfa
                rfa
                Research for All
                RFA
                UCL Press (UK )
                2399-8121
                22 September 2020
                : 4
                : 2
                : 207-219
                Affiliations
                [1]Imperial College London, UK
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: email: j.bruton@ 123456imperial.ac.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4477-4940
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0045-7206
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4600-2258
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6585-7641
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8238-5036
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5695-6210
                Article
                10.14324/RFA.04.2.06
                1149ab89-822b-4d60-9883-171e4f0e0502
                Copyright © 2020 Bruton, Jones, Jenkins, Davies, Ward and Toledano

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY) 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 10 May 2019
                : 05 May 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 1, References: 37, Pages: 14

                Assessment, Evaluation & Research methods,Education & Public policy,Educational research & Statistics
                co-production,BME,seldom heard,research participation,PPI,parental consent

                Comments

                Comment on this article