Dataset Information

Ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes among healthcare workers in the UK: UK-REACH ethico-legal research, qualitative research on healthcare workers' experiences and stakeholder engagement protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

As the world continues to grapple with the COVID-19 pandemic, emerging evidence suggests that individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds may be disproportionately affected. The United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH) project has been initiated to generate rapid evidence on whether and why ethnicity affects COVID-19 diagnosis and clinical outcomes in healthcare workers (HCWs) in the UK, through five interlinked work packages/work streams, three of which form the basis of this protocol. The ethico-legal work (Work Package 3) aims to understand and address legal, ethical and acceptability issues around big data research; the HCWs' experiences study (Work Package 4) explores their work and personal experiences, perceptions of risk, support and coping mechanisms; the stakeholder engagement work (Work Package 5) aims to provide feedback and support with the formulation and dissemination of the project recommendations.

Methods and analysis

Work Package 3 has two different research strands: (A) desk-based doctrinal research; and (B) empirical qualitative research with key opinion leaders. For the empirical research, in-depth interviews will be conducted digitally and recorded with participants' permission. Recordings will be transcribed, coded and analysed using thematic analysis. In Work Package 4, online in-depth interviews and focus groups will be conducted with approximately 150 HCWs, from across the UK, and these will be recorded with participants' consent. The recordings will be transcribed and coded and data will be analysed using thematic analysis. Work Package 5 will achieve its objectives through regular group meetings and in-group discussions.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval has been received from the London-Brighton & Sussex Research Ethics Committee of the Health Research Authority (Ref No 20/HRA/4718). Results of the study will be published in open-access journals, and disseminated through conference presentations, project website, stakeholder organisations, media and scientific advisory groups.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN11811602.

SUBMITTER: Gogoi M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8275361 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality and devastated economies globally. Among groups at increased risk are healthcare workers (HCWs) and ethnic minority groups. Emerging evidence suggests that HCWs from ethnic minority groups are at increased risk of adverse COVID-19-related outcomes. To date, there has been no large-scale analysis of these risks in UK HCWs or ancillary workers in healthcare settings, stratified by ethnicity or occupation, and adjusted for confounders. This paper reports the protocol for a prospective longitudinal questionnaire study of UK HCWs, as part of the UK-REACH programme (The United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers).Methods and analysisA baseline questionnaire will be administered to a national cohort of UK HCWs and ancillary workers in healthcare settings, and those registered with UK healthcare regulators, with follow-up questionnaires administered at 4 and 8 months. With consent, questionnaire data will be linked to health records with 25-year follow-up. Univariate associations between ethnicity and clinical COVID-19 outcomes, physical and mental health, and key confounders/explanatory variables will be tested. Multivariable analyses will test for associations between ethnicity and key outcomes adjusted for the confounder/explanatory variables. We will model changes over time by ethnic group, facilitating understanding of absolute and relative risks in different ethnic groups, and generalisability of findings.Ethics and disseminationThe study is approved by Health Research Authority (reference 20/HRA/4718), and carries minimal risk. We aim to manage the small risk of participant distress about questions on sensitive topics by clearly participant information that the questionnaire covers sensitive topics and there is no obligation to answer these or any other questions, and by providing support organisation links. Results will be disseminated with reports to Government and papers submitted to pre-print servers and peer reviewed journals.Trial registration numberISRCTN11811602; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundRegular vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 may be needed to maintain immunity in 'at-risk' populations, which include healthcare workers (HCWs). However, little is known about the proportion of HCWs who might be hesitant about receiving a hypothetical regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or the factors associated with this hesitancy.MethodsCross-sectional analysis of questionnaire data collected as part of UK-REACH, a nationwide, longitudinal cohort study of HCWs. The outcome measure was binary, either a participant indicated they would definitely accept regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination if recommended or they indicated some degree of hesitancy regarding acceptance (probably accept or less likely). We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with hesitancy for receiving regular vaccination.ResultsA total of 5454 HCWs were included in the analysed cohort, 23.5% of whom were hesitant about regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Black HCWs were more likely to be hesitant than White HCWs (aOR 2.60, 95%CI 1.80-3.72) as were those who reported a previous episode of COVID-19 (1.33, 1.13-1.57 [vs those who tested negative]). Those who received influenza vaccination in the previous two seasons were over five times less likely to report hesitancy for regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination than those not vaccinated against influenza in either season (0.18, 0.14-0.21). HCWs who trusted official sources of vaccine information (such as NHS or government adverts or websites) were less likely to report hesitancy for a regular vaccination programme. Those who had been exposed to information advocating against vaccination from friends and family were more likely to be hesitant.ConclusionsIn this study, nearly a quarter of UK HCWs were hesitant about receiving a regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. We have identified key factors associated with hesitancy for regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, which can be used to identify groups of HCWs at the highest risk of vaccine hesitancy and tailor interventions accordingly. Family and friends of HCWs may influence decisions about regular vaccination. This implies that working with HCWs and their social networks to allay concerns about SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could improve uptake in a regular vaccination programme.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN11811602.

Project description:BackgroundBecause no single person or group holds knowledge about all aspects of research, mechanisms are needed to support knowledge exchange and engagement. Expertise in the research setting necessarily includes scientific and methodological expertise, but also expertise gained through the experience of participating in research and/or being a recipient of research outcomes (as a patient or member of the public). Engagement is, by its nature, reciprocal and relational: the process of engaging research participants, patients, citizens and others (the many 'publics' of engagement) brings them closer to the research but also brings the research closer to them. When translating research into practice, engaging the public and other stakeholders is explicitly intended to make the outcomes of translation relevant to its constituency of users.MethodsIn practice, engagement faces numerous challenges and is often time-consuming, expensive and 'thorny' work. We explore the epistemic and ontological considerations and implications of four common critiques of engagement methodologies that contest: representativeness, communication and articulation, impacts and outcome, and democracy. The ECOUTER (Employing COnceptUal schema for policy and Translation Engagement in Research) methodology addresses problems of representation and epistemic foundationalism using a methodology that asks, "How could it be otherwise?" ECOUTER affords the possibility of engagement where spatial and temporal constraints are present, relying on saturation as a method of 'keeping open' the possible considerations that might emerge and including reflexive use of qualitative analytic methods.ResultsThis paper describes the ECOUTER process, focusing on one worked example and detailing lessons learned from four other pilots. ECOUTER uses mind-mapping techniques to 'open up' engagement, iteratively and organically. ECOUTER aims to balance the breadth, accessibility and user-determination of the scope of engagement. An ECOUTER exercise comprises four stages: (1) engagement and knowledge exchange; (2) analysis of mindmap contributions; (3) development of a conceptual schema (i.e. a map of concepts and their relationship); and (4) feedback, refinement and development of recommendations.ConclusionECOUTER refuses fixed truths but also refuses a fixed nature. Its promise lies in its flexibility, adaptability and openness. ECOUTER will be formed and re-formed by the needs and creativity of those who use it.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral countries now have mandatory SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for healthcare workers (HCWs) or the general population. HCWs' views on this are largely unknown. Using data from the nationwide UK-REACH study we aimed to understand UK HCW's views on improving SARS-CoV-2 vaccination coverage, including mandatory vaccination.MethodsBetween 21st April and 26th June 2021, we administered an online questionnaire via email to 17 891 UK HCWs recruited as part of a longitudinal cohort from across the UK who had previously responded to a baseline questionnaire (primarily recruited through email) as part of the United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH) nationwide prospective cohort study. We categorised responses to a free-text question "What should society do if people do not get vaccinated against COVID-19?" using qualitative content analysis. We collapsed categories into a binary variable: favours mandatory vaccination or not, using logistic regression to calculate its demographic predictors, and its occupational, health, and attitudinal predictors adjusted for demographics.FindingsOf 5633 questionnaire respondents, 3235 answered the free text question. Median age of free text responders was 47 years (IQR 36-56) and 2705 (74.3%) were female. 18% (n = 578) favoured mandatory vaccination (201 [6%] participants for HCWs and others working with vulnerable populations; 377 [12%] for the general population), but the most frequent suggestion was education (32%, n = 1047). Older HCWs (OR 1.84; 95% CI 1.44-2.34 [≥55 years vs 16 years to <40 years]), HCWs vaccinated against influenza (OR 1.49; 95% CI 1.11-2.01 [2 vaccines vs none]), and with more positive vaccination attitudes generally (OR 1.10; 95% CI 1.06-1.15) were more likely to favour mandatory vaccination, whereas female HCWs (OR= 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.96, vs male HCWs) and Black HCWs (OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.25-0.85, vs white HCWs) were less likely to.InterpretationOnly one in six of the HCWs in this large, diverse, UK-wide sample favoured mandatory vaccination. Building trust, educating, and supporting HCWs who are hesitant about vaccination may be more acceptable, effective, and equitable.FundingMRC-UK Research and Innovation grant (MR/V027549/1) and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) via the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). Core funding was also provided by NIHR Biomedical Research Centres.

Project description:IntroductionData linkage for health research purposes enables the answering of countless new research questions, is said to be cost effective and less intrusive than other means of data collection. Nevertheless, health researchers are currently dealing with a complicated, fragmented, and inconsistent regulatory landscape with regard to the processing of data, and progress in health research is hindered.AimWe designed a qualitative study to assess what different stakeholders perceive as ethical and legal obstacles to data linkage for health research purposes, and how these obstacles could be overcome.MethodsTwo focus groups and eighteen semi-structured in-depth interviews were held to collect opinions and insights of various stakeholders. An inductive thematic analysis approach was used to identify overarching themes.ResultsThis study showed that the ambiguity regarding the 'correct' interpretation of the law, the fragmentation of policies governing the processing of personal health data, and the demandingness of legal requirements are experienced as causes for the impediment of data linkage for research purposes by the participating stakeholders. To remove or reduce these obstacles authoritative interpretations of the laws and regulations governing data linkage should be issued. The participants furthermore encouraged the harmonisation of data linkage policies, as well as promoting trust and transparency and the enhancement of technical and organisational measures. Lastly, there is a demand for legislative and regulatory modifications amongst the participants.ConclusionsTo overcome the obstacles in data linkage for scientific research purposes, perhaps we should shift the focus from adapting the current laws and regulations governing data linkage, or even designing completely new laws, towards creating a more thorough understanding of the law and making better use of the flexibilities within the existing legislation. Important steps in achieving this shift could be clarification of the legal provisions governing data linkage by issuing authoritative interpretations, as well as the strengthening of ethical-legal oversight bodies.

Project description:Introduction/objectivesThe engagement of patients and other stakeholders is a critical element in the design of patient-centered outcomes research studies. However, methodology for scalable engagement in research management particularly activities such as operationalization of principles and setting of priorities is not well-developed. The objective of this study is to describe a novel approach for scalable stakeholder engagement in research aligned with the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) engagement principles, which was evaluated in a national clinical data research network.Materials and methodsPatient, patient advocate, clinician, and researcher stakeholders were recruited from clinical sites, as well as social media sites related to the 3 conditions of focus, heart failure, obesity, and Kawasaki disease. The engagement strategy was designed, implemented, and mapped to the PCORI engagement principles. Evaluation included internal assessment and quantitative measures of online engagement.ResultsWe operationalized the PCORI principles with 12 stakeholder engagement strategies and convened stakeholder advisory boards and online research prioritization panels to determine research priorities in a rigorous, deliberative process. A total of 46 advisors (20 patients) and 339 panelists (159 patients) actively participated. There were not significant differences between patients and clinicians in level of online engagement. Nonetheless, while patients reported a slightly greater challenge with following online discussion, they overall had a more favorable opinion about use of the online format.Discussion/conclusionAn efficient way to engage large numbers of representative stakeholders in research is a necessary first step to assure the public of trustworthy use of data networks for health research. This paper describes a comprehensive approach to engagement in patient-centered outcomes research management that informs ongoing development of rigorous methodologies in this area.