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]

Introduction: The aim of this paper is to investigate what factors are associated to cardiovascular disease and what differences exists between Asians living in the UK (from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing) and the Asians living in India (from the Longitudinal Ageing Study in India). Methods: Logistic regression was used to investigate how demographic and physical performance factors were associated with cardiovascular disease using data from Wave 6 of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing and Wave 1 of the Longitudinal Study of Ageing in India, with the main variable of interest being country of residence, Asians in England or Asians in India. Results: A total of 83,997 participants were included in the analyses. In the primary analysis, 73,396 participants from LASI were compared to 171 Asians in ELSA. After adjusting for age, blood pressure, resting heart rate, sex, waist circumference, gait, handgrip strength and standing balance, there was a statistically significant difference for the outcome of CVD between Whites ELSA (reference) and the participants of LASI (odds ratio = 0.77; 95% confidence interval = 0.60 to 0.99). There were no significant differences in CVD between the LASI participants, Asian ELSA, and the Non-White but not Asian ELSA groups. Discussion: No difference was found between Asians that live in India compared to ethnic minorities living in England, including Asians, after adjusting for confounders, but was found between Whites in ELSA compared to LASI participants. A key limitation was the massive disparity in sample sizes between the ELSA subgroups and LASI. Further work is required where comparable sample sizes and longitudinal analyses allow trends to be identified and to investigate the factors associated with the difference in CVD between two similar ethnicities living in distinct locations. Conclusion: After adjusting for risk factors, there was no difference in CVD between localised Asians and the ethnic minorities in the UK, but there was a difference between the majority ethnicities in the respective countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research has suggested that older trans and gender non-conforming (TGNC) people may face particular challenges related to stigma, social exclusion and discrimination in later life. However, direct data on social support and needs in older TGNC population both internationally and within the UK is limited due to the small, dispersed nature of this population, and the absence of specific data collection on aging TGNC populations. During the UK COVID-19 lockdown in summer 2020, older people and those with long-term health conditions were advised to adopt particular precautions. This study aimed to explore older TGNC people's social support networks, key concerns and unmet needs during the COVID-19 'lockdown'. A UK cross-sectional survey of LGBT + people aged 60+ (n = 375) was undertaken during the lockdown. This paper analyses responses from the subset (n = 38) of TGNC participants. The majority of TGNC respondents described diverse social networks, often centered around friends and non-kin social networks, although partners and adult children were also significant for some. In most cases, those with existing strong networks continued to maintain social connections during lockdown, albeit with some regrets about loss of activities and face-to-face connection. However, a minority of respondents had experienced greater challenges prior to lockdown, and may have been at increased vulnerability during the pandemic, for example indicating that they had no-one to call on for practical support in an emergency. When asked about unmet needs and challenges, social isolation was repeatedly raised as the most frequent concern. Several respondents also mentioned issues specifically affecting TGNC communities, including access to gender affirming care and a perceived rise in social intolerance. Health and social care providers should be aware of the diversity of support networks within TGNC communities. There may also be benefits in community sector interventions to help older TGNC build and maintain strong social networks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Melanoma incidence has quadrupled since 1970 and melanoma is now the second most common cancer in individuals under 50. Targeted immunotherapies for melanoma now potentially enable long-term remission even in advanced melanoma, but these melanoma survivors require ongoing surveillance, with implications for NHS resources and significant social and psychological consequences for patients. Total skin self-examination (TSSE) can detect recurrence earlier and improve clinical outcomes but is underperformed in the UK. To support survivors, the Achieving Self-directed Integrated Cancer Aftercare (ASICA) intervention was developed to prompt and improve TSSE performance, with subsequent reporting of concerns and submission of skin photos to a Dermatology Nurse Practitioner (DNP). ASICA was delivered as a randomized pilot trial.Methods: This paper reports on process evaluation. Data on participants' demographics and the concerns they reported during the trial were tabulated and displayed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS. We explored which participants used ASICA, and how frequently, to report any skin concerns. We also determined how the interactions had worked in terms of quality of skin photographs submitted, clinical assessments made by the DNP, and the assessments and decisions made for each concern. Finally, we explored significant events occurring during the trial. Data on participants' demographics and the concerns they reported during the trial were tabulated and displayed using SPSS. A semi-structured interview was undertaken with the DNP to gain perspective on the range of concerns presented and how they were resolved.Results: Of 121 recruited melanoma patients receiving ASICA for 12 months, 69 participants submitted a total of 123 reports detailing 189 separate skin-related concerns and including 188 skin photographs. Where participants fully complied with follow-up by the DNP, concerns were usually resolved remotely, but 19 (10.1%) were seen at a secondary care clinic and 14 (7.4%) referred to their GP. 49 (25.9%) of concerns were not completely resolved due to partial non-compliance with DNP follow-up.Conclusion: Melanoma patients randomized to the ASICA intervention were able to report skin-related concerns that could be resolved remotely through interaction with a DNP. Feasibility issues highlighted by ASICA will support further development and optimization of this digital tool.Trial Registration: Clinical Trials.gov , NCT03328247 . Registered on 1 November 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Up to 20% of UK children experience socio-emotional difficulties which can have serious implications for themselves, their families and society. Stark socioeconomic and ethnic inequalities in children's well-being exist. Supporting parents to develop effective parenting skills is an important preventive strategy in reducing inequalities. Parenting interventions have been developed, which aim to reduce the severity and impact of these difficulties. However, most parenting interventions in the UK focus on early childhood (0-10 years) and often fail to engage families from ethnic minority groups and those living in poverty. Strengthening Families, Strengthening Communities (SFSC) is a parenting programme designed by the Race Equality Foundation, which aims to address this gap. Evidence from preliminary studies is encouraging, but no randomised controlled trials have been undertaken so far.Methods/design: The TOGETHER study is a multi-centre, waiting list controlled, randomised trial, which aims to test the effectiveness of SFSC in families with children aged 3-18 across seven urban areas in England with ethnically and socially diverse populations. The primary outcome is parental mental well-being (assessed by the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale). Secondary outcomes include child socio-emotional well-being, parenting practices, family relationships, self-efficacy, quality of life, and community engagement. Outcomes are assessed at baseline, post intervention, three- and six-months post intervention. Cost effectiveness will be estimated using a cost-utility analysis and cost-consequences analysis. The study is conducted in two stages. Stage 1 comprised a 6-month internal pilot to determine the feasibility of the trial. A set of progression criteria were developed to determine whether the stage 2 main trial should proceed. An embedded process evaluation will assess the fidelity and acceptability of the intervention.Discussion: In this paper we provide details of the study protocol for this trial. We also describe challenges to implementing the protocol and how these were addressed. Once completed, if beneficial effects on both parental and child outcomes are found, the impact, both immediate and longer term, are potentially significant. As the intervention focuses on supporting families living in poverty and those from minority ethnic communities, the intervention should also ultimately have a beneficial impact on reducing health inequalities.Trial Registration: Prospectively registered Randomised Controlled Trial ISRCTN15194500 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]