Search

Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) in the United Kingdom (UK) have faced many challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, some of these arising out of their social positions. Existing literature explicating these challenges (e.g., lack of appropriate PPE, redeployment, understaffing) have highlighted inequities in how these have been experienced by HCWs based on ethnicity, gender or, job role. In this paper, we move a step ahead and examine how the intersection of these social positions have impacted HCWs' experiences of challenges during the pandemic. Methods: We collected qualitative data, using interviews and focus groups, from 164 HCWs from different ethnicities, gender, job roles, migration statuses, and regions in the United Kingdom (UK) between December 2020 and July 2021. Interviews and focus groups were conducted online or by telephone, and recorded with participants' permission. Recordings were transcribed and a hybrid thematic analytical approach integrating inductive data-driven codes with deductive ones informed by an intersectional framework was adopted to analyse the transcripts. Results: Thematic analysis of transcripts identified disempowerment, disadvantage and, discrimination as the three main themes around which HCWs' experiences of challenges were centred, based on their intersecting identities (e.g., ethnicity gender, and/or migration status). Our analysis also acknowledges that disadvantages faced by HCWs were linked to systemic and structural factors at the micro, meso and macro ecosystemic levels. This merging of analysis which is grounded in intersectionality and considers the ecosystemic levels has been termed as 'intrasectionalism'. Discussion: Our research demonstrates how an intrasectional lens can help better understand how different forms of mutually reinforcing inequities exist at all levels within the healthcare workforce and how these impact HCWs from certain backgrounds who face greater disadvantage, discrimination and disempowerment, particularly during times of crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The concept of collaborative approaches involves community residents in joint decision-making processes to maintain or enhance their material and social conditions. During COVID-19, public services saw the benefits of actively collaborating with communities and involving residents in decision-making processes. As communities have resources and assets, they are well-placed to contribute to developing local health and wellbeing initiatives. An interdisciplinary and nationally funded three-phase research programme, "Mobilising community assets to tackle health inequalities", was established with the objective of utilising local, cultural, and natural assets to support health and wellbeing. The current study aimed to synthesise evidence collected by research teams awarded funding in phase one of the programme, comprising academic and non-academic, health and social care, voluntary and community partners. Methods: Ten online focus groups were conducted with research teams from across the UK exploring the successes and challenges of partnership working to tackle health inequalities using collaborative approaches to community-based research. Eight focus group questions were split between partnership working and health inequalities. Results: Thematic and content analysis produced 185 subthemes from which 12 themes were identified. Major themes representing an above average number of coded responses were research evidence; funding; relationships with partners; health inequalities and deprivation; community involvement; and health service and integrated care systems. Minor themes were link workers and social prescribing; training and support; place-based factors; longevity of programmes; setting up and scaling up programmes; and mental health. Conclusions: Successes included employing practice-based and arts-based methods, being part of a research project for those not normally involved in research, sharing funding democratically, building on established relationships, and the vital role that local assets play in involving communities. Challenges involved a lack of sustainable financial support, the short-term nature of funding, inconsistencies in reaching the poorest people, obtaining the right sort of research evidence, making sufficient research progress, building relationships with already over-burdened health care staff, and redressing the balance of power in favour of communities. Despite the challenges, participants were mainly optimistic that collective approaches and meaningful co-production would create opportunities for future research partnerships with communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Racism in the healthcare system has become a burgeoning focus in health policy-making and research. Existing research has shown both interpersonal and structural forms of racism limiting access to quality healthcare for racialised healthcare users. Nevertheless, little is known about the specifics of racism in the inpatient sector, specifically hospitals and rehabilitation facilities. The aim of this scoping review is therefore to map the evidence on racial discrimination experienced by people receiving treatment in inpatient settings (hospitals and rehabilitation facilities) or their caregivers in high-income countries, focusing specifically on whether intersectional axes of discrimination have been taken into account when describing these experiences. Methods: Based on the conceptual framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley, this scoping review surveyed existing research on racism and racial discrimination in inpatient care in high-income countries published between 2013 and 2023. The software Rayyan was used to support the screening process while MAXQDA was used for thematic coding. Results: Forty-seven articles were included in this review. Specifics of the inpatient sector included different hospitalisation, admission and referral rates within and across hospitals; the threat of racial discrimination from other healthcare users; and the spatial segregation of healthcare users according to ethnic, religious or racialised criteria. While most articles described some interactions between race and other social categories in the sample composition, the framework of intersectionality was rarely considered explicitly during analysis. Discussion: While the USA continue to predominate in discussions, other high-income countries including Canada, Australia and the UK also examine racism in their own healthcare systems. Absent from the literature are studies from a wider range of European countries as well as of racialised and disadvantaged groups other than refugees or recent immigrants. Research in this area would also benefit from an engagement with approaches to intersectionality in public health to produce a more nuanced understanding of the interactions of racism with other axes of discrimination. As inpatient care exhibits a range of specific structures, future research and policy-making ought to consider these specifics to develop targeted interventions, including training for non-clinical staff and robust, transparent and accessible complaint procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]