Search

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions caused major disruption globally, shedding light on the unprecedented strain upon the mental health and wellbeing of individuals around the world. Poor mental health in the pandemic is reported to be greater in women, with mothers being at increased risk. It is unclear whether there are differences in the impact of mental wellbeing on some ethnic groups over others. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of British Muslim Pakistani women with family responsibilities during the COVID-19 pandemic, two years on from the first lockdown. Methods: Qualitative interviews with women were conducted via telephone using a semi-structured topic guide. The sample included 25 British Muslim Pakistani women with family responsibilities, both English and non-English speaking. Women lived in households that ranged in number and included extended family. Key themes were determined using thematic analysis. Results: Results were grouped under three themes. These were (1) Community, cultural and religious contributors to poor mental wellbeing, (2) religious and cultural mediators of mental distress, and (3) perceived positive impact on lifestyle. British Muslim Pakistani women were psychologically distressed by the high rates of virus transmission and deaths in their communities and at the prospect of older members of their extended family developing the virus. The impact of restrictions on fundamental religious and cultural interactions further exacerbated poor mental wellbeing in this population. Religion, community social capital and larger household structures were all effective coping strategies for British Muslim Pakistani women. Positive impacts of the pandemic included becoming closer to family and faith, and increased work/life harmony. Conclusions: An exploration of religious and cultural coping mechanisms should be used to inform future national pandemic preparedness plans, as well as effective strategies for building and maintaining social capital. This may increase adherence to physical distancing and other protective behaviours in populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Living in an area with high levels of child poverty predisposes children to poorer mental and physical health. ActEarly is a 5-year research programme that comprises a large number of interventions (>20) with citizen science and co-production embedded. It aims to improve the health and well-being of children and families living in two areas of the UK with high levels of deprivation; Bradford in West Yorkshire, and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. This protocol outlines the meta-evaluation (an evaluation of evaluations) of the ActEarly programme from a systems perspective, where individual interventions are viewed as events in the wider policy system across the two geographical areas. It includes investigating the programme's impact on early life health and well-being outcomes, interdisciplinary prevention research collaboration and capacity building, and local and national decision making. Methods: The ActEarly meta-evaluation will follow and adapt the five iterative stages of the 'Evaluation of Programmes in Complex Adaptive Systems' (ENCOMPASS) framework for evaluation of public health programmes in complex adaptive systems. Theory-based and mixed-methods approaches will be used to investigate the fidelity of the ActEarly research programme, and whether, why and how ActEarly contributes to changes in the policy system, and whether alternative explanations can be ruled out. Ripple effects and systems mapping will be used to explore the relationships between interventions and their outcomes, and the degree to which the ActEarly programme encouraged interdisciplinary and prevention research collaboration as intended. A computer simulation model ("LifeSim") will also be used to evaluate the scale of the potential long-term benefits of cross-sectoral action to tackle the financial, educational and health disadvantages faced by children in Bradford and Tower Hamlets. Together, these approaches will be used to evaluate ActEarly's dynamic programme outputs at different system levels and measure the programme's system changes on early life health and well-being. Discussion: This meta-evaluation protocol presents our plans for using and adapting the ENCOMPASS framework to evaluate the system-wide impact of the early life health and well-being programme, ActEarly. Due to the collaborative and non-linear nature of the work, we reserve the option to change and query some of our evaluation choices based on the feedback we receive from stakeholders to ensure that our evaluation remains relevant and fit for purpose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities suffer from disproportionately poorer health than the general population. This issue has been recently exemplified by the large numbers of infection rates and deaths caused by covid-19 in BAME populations. Future research has the potential to improve health outcomes for these groups. High quality research priority setting is crucial to effectively consider the needs of the most vulnerable groups of the population. Objective: The purpose of this systematic review is to identify existing research priority studies conducted for BAME health and to determine the extent to which they followed good practice principles for research priority setting. Method: Included studies were identified by searching Medline, Cinnahl, PsychINFO, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, as well as searches in grey literature. Search terms included "research priority setting", "research prioritisation", "research agenda", "Black and minority ethnic", "ethnic group". Studies were included if they identified or elicited research priorities for BAME health and if they outlined a process of conducting a research prioritisation exercise. A checklist of Nine Common Themes of Good Practice in research priority setting was used as a methodological framework to evaluate the research priority processes of each study. Results: Out of 1514 citations initially obtained, 17 studies were included in the final synthesis. Topic areas for their research prioritisation exercise included suicide prevention, knee surgery, mental health, preterm birth, and child obesity. Public and patient involvement was included in eleven studies. Methods of research prioritisation included workshops, Delphi techniques, surveys, focus groups and interviews. The quality of empirical evidence was diverse. None of the exercises followed all good practice principles as outlined in the checklist. Areas that were lacking in particular were: the lack of a comprehensive approach to guide the process; limited use of criteria to guide discussion around priorities; unequal or no representation from ethnic minorities, and poor evaluation of their own processes. Conclusions: Research priority setting practices were found to mostly not follow good practice guidelines which aim to ensure rigour in priority setting activities and support the inclusion of BAME communities in establishing the research agenda. Research is unlikely to deliver useful findings that can support relevant research and positive change for BAME communities unless they fulfil areas of good practice such as inclusivity of key stakeholders' input, planning for implementation of identified priorities, criteria for deciding on priorities, and evaluation of their processes in research priority setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]