Menu
  • CPD online - National Elf Service
  • ElfHelp
  • Social Media
  • Video
  • Podcast
  • Webinar
  • Training
  • Contact
  • News

No bias. No misinformation. No spin. Just what you need!

The Mental Elf

  • Home
  • About
  • Categories
      • Cost effectiveness
      • Evaluation and impact assessment
      • Financial management
      • Financial sustainability
      • Integration
      • Needs assessment
      • Outcomes based commissioning
      • Partnership working
      • Population health
      • Resource allocation
      • Service reconfiguration
      • Service review and improvement
      • Specialised commissioning
      • Strategy development and planning
      • Technology
      • Urgent care
      • Variation
      • caries
      • cleft lip and palate
      • dental workforce
      • endodontics
      • oral and maxillofacial surgery
      • oral cancer
      • oral health
      • oral medicine and pathology
      • orthodontics
      • periodontal disease
      • restorative dentistry
      • temporomandibular joint disorders
      • tooth surface loss
    • Diagnosis
      • brain imaging
      • diagnostic test
      • prediction
      • risk factors
      • screening programme
      • screening test
      • behaviour
      • ICT
      • learning styles
      • numeracy
      • phonics
      • reading
      • science
      • social emotional
      • social skills
      • wellbeing
      • autistic spectrum disorder
      • challenging behaviour
      • communication
      • down syndrome
      • parents with learning disabilities
      • prader-willi syndrome
      • profound and multiple learning disability
    • Mental health
      • addiction
      • ADHD
      • anxiety
      • bipolar disorder
      • body-focused repetitive behaviours
      • dementia
      • depression
      • eating disorders
      • OCD
      • panic disorder
      • personality disorders
      • psychosis
      • PTSD
      • schizophrenia
      • self-harm
      • sleep disorders
      • suicide
      • trauma
      • autoimmune and inflammatory diseases
      • fibromyalgia
      • fractures and dislocations
      • musculoskeletal pain
      • neck and back pain
      • osteoarthritis
      • osteoporosis
      • rheumatoid arthritis
      • soft tissue injuries
      • spinal conditions
      • spondyloarthropathies
    • Other health conditions
      • blood-borne viruses
      • cancer
      • cardiovascular disease
      • chronic fatigue syndrome
      • comorbidity
      • epilepsy
      • motor neuron disease
      • multiple sclerosis
      • parkinson's disease
      • sleep apnoea
      • Tourette Syndrome
      • traumatic brain injury
    • Populations and settings
      • advocacy
      • black and minority ethnic
      • caregivers
      • child and adolescent
      • climate
      • commissioning
      • community settings
      • crime
      • deinstitutionalisation
      • employment
      • end of life
      • family carers
      • hospital admissions
      • housing
      • later life
      • LGBTQ+
      • liaison psychiatry
      • loneliness
      • older adult
      • parenting
      • patient safety
      • perinatal mental health
      • poverty
      • pregnancy
      • primary care
      • quality of life
      • refugee
      • schools
      • secondary care
      • service user involvement
      • shared care
      • sport
      • training
      • vulnerable people
      • young adult
    • Publication types
      • appraisal
      • audit
      • case study
      • case-control
      • cohort study
      • consultation
      • cross-sectional
      • economic analysis
      • economic evaluation
      • guideline
      • legislation
      • literature review
      • mendelian randomisation
      • meta-analysis
      • mixed methods
      • observational study
      • patient information
      • policy
      • prospective study
      • qualitative
      • questionnaire
      • randomised controlled trial
      • report
      • scoping review
      • state of the art review
      • statistics
      • survey
      • systematic review
      • technology assessment
      • training resource
      • umbrella review
      • website
      • coproduction
      • equality and diversity
      • evidence based social care
      • home care
      • integration
      • local authorities
      • nursing homes
      • personal budgets and direct payments
      • personalisation
      • reablement
      • residential care
      • safeguarding
      • social care decision making
      • social care training
      • social care workforce
      • social work
      • support planning
      • user led organisations
      • voluntary and community sector
    • Treatment
      • antidepressants
      • antipsychotics
      • CBT
      • cognitive bias modification (cbm)
      • complementary and alternative
      • digital health
      • exercise
      • medicines
      • mental illness prevention
      • mindfulness
      • neurostimulation
      • other
      • psychotherapy
      • rehabilitation
      • self-management
      • surgical
      • systems
      • telehealth
      • topical
  • Podcasts
Search

Improving diversity in research: Learning from the perspectives of minority communities in the UK

No Responses »
Jun 10 2024
Profile photo of Nagina Khan
Posted by
Nagina Khan>,
Nina Higson-Sweeney
yingchou-han-IJrIeCs3D4g-unsplash

Health and social care research is undertaken to inform and broaden our understanding of different topics and phenomena before we make decisions in practice (National Institute for Health Research, n.d.). Diversity is an important element to consider when conducting this kind of research, but seems to have posed something of a challenge for both qualitative and quantitative researchers in the social sciences.

Evidence suggests that research often fails to adequately represent the voices of ethnic minorities, despite recognition that these populations experience a greater burden of disease and poorer treatment outcomes (Smart et al., 2017). As research can lead to the development of treatment guidelines which influence clinical practice, the absence of these voices means that treatments generated and utilised as not necessarily generalisable, applicable, or helpful for ethnic minority populations. This works to amplify health inequalities.

It is therefore important to ensure that health and social care research includes participants from underrepresented groups. However, there are still barriers to research participation among minority groups, such as lack of understanding and lack of necessary resources to facilitate engagement (Brown et al., 2014). As such, it is important to develop a comprehensive understanding of research experiences, interests, and priorities among minority groups – which is what Ekezie and colleagues (2023) aimed to do.

As research plays a key role in the development of healthcare guidelines, it is important that a diverse range of voices are represented. If this doesn’t happen, there is a risk that the treatments developed will not be generalisable or helpful.

As research plays a key role in the development of healthcare guidelines, it is important that a diverse range of voices are represented. If this doesn’t happen, there is a risk that the treatments developed will not be generalisable or helpful.

Methods

The REPRESENT study is a programme of research designed to explore research priorities relating to health and social care among ethnic minority populations in the UK. The current article presents some of the project’s qualitative findings, which were collected from minority communities, healthcare providers (HCPs), and researchers in the East Midlands between May and September 2022.

The REPRESENT study was supported by ethnic minority members of the Centre for Ethnic Health Research, alongside members from Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) groups. Members representing different categories within the Equality Act helped to review the topic guide to make sure it was appropriately relevant and sensitive. The research findings were also reviewed to ensure cultural accuracy.

Data was collected through focus groups and semi-structured interviews, and analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

A total of 52 individuals participated in either focus groups (n = 45) or one‐to‐one interviews (n = 7). Focus group participants came from a diverse range of minority backgrounds, including ethnicity (n = 34; African Caribbean, Eastern European, Gypsy Travellers, Somali, South Asian), but also sexuality (n = 4) and refugee/asylum seeker status (n = 7). This was because the authors’ definition of ‘ethnicity’ was broad, and they wanted to include all protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. Interview participants included researchers, carers, nurses/midwives, and general practitioners (GPs).

Analysis generated three main themes:

Theme 1: Health information and healthcare seeking actions

  • Participants often searched for healthcare information online, using platforms like Google. However, the information was sometimes perceived as confusing or unreliable, and didn’t always include what they were looking for. Further, not everyone had the language skills or technology to seek healthcare information online, which led to a delay in help-seeking.
  • Community organisations were seen as a good alternative for seeking health information, particularly when events were organised that allowed members of the public to interact with HCPs.
  • Insufficient time, lack of cultural understanding, difficulty in accessing GP appointments, and previous negative experiences were barriers for seeking information through official health channels.
  • Key recommendations included:
    • Improving healthcare communication within communities;
    • Increasing access to bilingual HCPs and community champions;
    • Greater access to private, one-to-one support.

Theme 2: Medical, health and social care service experiences

  • Subtheme: Access to services
    • Poor access to services was a considerable barrier, including short appointment times, lack of availability, and language barriers.
    • These barriers meant that some conditions were not taken seriously, like chronic pain, whereas other chronic conditions, like cancer or diabetes, became more complicated due to delays.
  • Subtheme: Discrimination
    • Participants shared how they felt judged, ignored, and dismissed by HCPs, which led to poorer medical attention.
    • Taboos and poor awareness of mental health was also influenced by racial or cultural discrimination, which led to an avoidance of services.
  • Key recommendations included:
    • Increasing early intervention among ethnic minorities communities.

Theme 3: Health research

  • Subtheme: Research understanding, barriers and motivators
    • Across communities, there was a low history of research participation, although some did perceive research favourably due to past positive experiences.
    • Incentives were seen as a way to increase motivation to take part in research, but were not necessarily enough on their own to encourage participation.
    • Some participants were reluctant to take part in research due to perceptions of being used as “guinea pigs” and a lack of direct benefit to them or their communities.
    • Key recommendations included:
      • Ensuring that participants are told about research outcomes and the impact it will have on their community;
      • Increasing community confidence in health and social care services;
      • Involving and empowering communities with research.
  • Subtheme: Research recommendations
    • The most popular areas of research interest were cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, mental health, sickle cell disease, and health promotion.
    • Social care research priorities included early intervention, social isolation, substance misuse, and understanding community needs.
    • Training for HCPs, alongside linguistic support and referral services were also highlighted as core priorities.
Participants from minority groups highlighted a range of barriers to engaging with research, including the perception of no direct benefit to themselves or their communities.

Participants from minority groups highlighted a range of barriers to engaging with research, including the perception of no direct benefit to themselves or their communities.

Conclusions

The findings from Ekezie et al. (2023) paint a troubling picture that emphasises how cultural discrimination and lack of understanding can lead to disengagement and underrepresentation of ethnic minority voices within health and social care services and research. It also provides insight into how additional factors such as poor service provision, language barriers, and lack of cultural sensitivity can exacerbate illnesses, and further contribute to feelings of apprehension and distrust.

Ethnic minorities may be more likely to turn to their communities for healthcare advice rather than official healthcare providers. Increasing community confidence in health and social care services is vital for change.

Ethnic minorities may be more likely to turn to their communities for healthcare advice rather than official healthcare providers. Increasing community confidence in health and social care services is vital for change.

Strengths and limitations

Strengths

  • The study largely makes appropriate use of qualitative methods for data collection and analysis, which are clearly reported in the main paper. This aids our confidence in the rigour and robustness of the study and its findings.
  • A main strength of this study lies in their collaboration with PPIE contributors. PPIE (patient and public involvement and engagement) in research is important because it helps researchers to better understand the perspectives of the groups they are studying and ensures that their research is appropriate and applicable. In turn, this has an influence on the knowledge generated by the research.
  • Although the reporting of recommended research areas within the main paper is poor, the authors have provided supplementary materials which explain in detail the range of research areas the different groups wanted to see prioritised. This is really useful information that can be used by researchers and policymakers to understand the needs of these minority populations.

Limitations

  • Whilst the researchers took steps to ensure that the focus groups were organised based on community and identity, some may have found it difficult to be open and honest about such a personal topic in front of others. There were opportunities for one-to-one interviews, but it is not clear who these were made available to in the main paper.
  • The authors acknowledge that the sample was limited to selected ethnic minority communities from the East Midlands, which reduces the generalisability of the findings to the wider UK population and other countries.
  • The authors briefly mention reflexivity, but have not provided a reflexive statement in the main paper or supplementary materials. This makes it difficult to understand the potential impact the research team had on their analysis, which reduces the transparency and confidence in the findings.
  • In addition to the above, some members of the research team had previously engaged with some of the participants in different projects. Again, because there is no reflexivity, it is difficult to tell the impact and potential bias.
  • Finally, it is not entirely clear why the paper first focuses on ethnic minority communities, but switches partway through to also include broader minoritised groups. While accessing and representing these voices is very important, it makes the paper difficult to follow.
There are several strengths to this study, including their use of Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE); but the authors also fail to provide a reflexivity statement that reflects how their identities, experiences, values and beliefs may have influenced the research.

There are several strengths to this study, including their use of Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE); but the authors also fail to provide a reflexivity statement that reflects how their identities, experiences, values and beliefs may have influenced the research.

Implications for practice

Practice

  • There is a clear need for culturally sensitive health and social care services, with HCPs who are trained in understanding cultural concepts of distress. This has been consistently identified as facilitating access and engagement with healthcare services among minority ethnic groups (Pilav et al., 2022).
  • Build relationships between services and communities to improve trust and facilitate direct communication. This could involve speaking on community radio stations, or drop-ins at community centres.
  • Ensure that patients have adequate access to private one-to-one support, both in community settings and within clinics.

Research

  • When designing research that involves minoritised groups, consider the potential barriers they may experience in relation to engaging in research, and proactively implement ways for overcoming these barriers (e.g., explicitly outlining in the participant information sheet how you will ensure that participants are updated with the study results).
  • Engage communities at the outset of any research project and find ways to empower them in leading research activities.
  • Conduct research that is focused on the topics that minority communities find most important, and include incentives for research participation.

Policy and funding

  • Minority communities may be reluctant to seek help for their health due to experienced barriers. This means that more focus and funding should be directed towards early intervention and ensuring that those that need help feel able to seek it.
  • Provide funding to minoritised communities to skill up leaders as community champions who can provide early advice, support, and signposting to health and social care services.
  • Increase linguistic support within health and social care services, particularly in areas where there are large populations of those who do not have English as their first language.
  • Consider which services and HCPs minority communities already utilise (e.g., pharmacists) and increase funding to support early intervention and signposting.
When designing research that involves minoritised groups, it is important to proactively implement methods for overcoming potential barriers to research engagement.

When designing research that involves minoritised groups, it is important to proactively implement methods for overcoming potential barriers to research engagement.

Statement of interests

None.

Links

Primary paper

Ekezie, W., Cassambai, S., Czyznikowska, B., Curtis, F., O’Mahoney, L. L., Willis, A., … & Farooqi, A. (2024). Health and social care experience and research perception of different ethnic minority populations in the East Midlands, United Kingdom (REPRESENT study). Health Expectations, 27(1), e13944.

Other references

Bhopal, R. (2004). Glossary of terms relating to ethnicity and race: for reflection and debate. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 58(6), 441–445.

Brown, G., Marshall, M., Bower, P., Woodham, A., & Waheed, W. (2014). Barriers to recruiting ethnic minorities to mental health research: a systematic review. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 23(1), 36-48.

National Institute for Health Research. (n.d.). What is health and care research? – Be Part of Research. Retrieved February 13, 2024, from https://bepartofresearch.nihr.ac.uk/about/What-is-health-and-care-research/

Pilav, S., De Backer, K., Easter, A., Silverio, S. A., Sundaresh, S., Roberts, S. & Howard, L. M. (2022). A qualitative study of minority ethnic women’s experiences of access to and engagement with perinatal mental health care. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 22(1).

Smart, A., & Harrison, E. (2017). The under-representation of minority ethnic groups in UK medical research. Ethnicity & Health, 22(1), 65-82.

Photo credits

  • Photo by Yingchou Han on Unsplash
  • Photo by Greg Rosenke on Unsplash
  • Photo by Jed Villejo on Unsplash
  • Photo by Aarón Blanco Tejedor on Unsplash
  • Photo by Vince Fleming on Unsplash
  • Photo by Zachary Nelson on Unsplash
Share on Facebook Tweet this on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Google+
Mark as read

Share this post:

Share on Facebook Tweet this on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Google+ Share via email
Create a personal elf note about this blog
Tagged with: access to services, asylum seekers, barriers, black and minority ethnic communities, diversity, focus groups, Health Expectations, health inequalities, healthcare professionals, inequalities, minority groups, patient and public engagement, patient and public involvement, qualitative study, racial inequalities, racism, refugees, refugees and asylum seekers, research, semi-structured interviews, sexual minorities, underrepresentation
Profile photo of Nagina Khan

Nagina Khan

Nagina is a Senior Clinical Research Fellow in Primary Care, Centre for Health Services Studies (CHSS), Division of Law, Society and Social Justice, School of Social Policy, Sociology & Social Research, University of Kent. Nagina’s current research supports the Integrated Care Systems (ICS) to capitalise on emerging existing networks in its research duty and mitigate the current risk of future research being conducted in silos and without focus on priorities and underserved populations. This work will diversify the public voice listened to and strengthen ICS strategic links within local research infrastructure to support evidence-based practice, apply solutions, and spread innovation. Nagina was a Senior postdoctoral researcher, in CHiMES, Department of Psychiatry, Oxford University. Nagina’s research was focused on social justice, equality, and fairness, in culturally appropriate mental health care and complex interventions. She carried out the staff data analysis of Experience based investigation and Co-design of approaches to Prevent and reduce Mental Health Act Use: (CO-PACT) study. Nagina has worked as a Scientist at Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) on the mixed method study focused on the Cultural adaptation of CBT for Canadians of South Asian Origin. During the Covid-19 Pandemic, She has also worked with Touro University Nevada, Las Vegas, on Professionalism in undergraduate medical Education and with the Royal College of Psychiatrists on Social Justice, Differential Attainment and Microaggressions in healthcare and medical education. She was a Medical Research Council (MRC) Research Training Fellow, her research was centred on complex interventions for people with depression, University of Manchester. Her post-doctoral studies were also undertaken at the NIHR School for Primary Care Research, UK focusing on First episode Psychosis in Young People Using Early Intervention services. Other research interests include Incentivisation Schemes (P4P) in healthcare for HICs and LMICs and Global Health. Nagina is the Associate Editor at BMJ Mental Health, and she is an Editorial Fellow at BMJ Leader.

More posts - Website

Follow me here –

  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
Profile photo of Nina Higson-Sweeney

Nina Higson-Sweeney

Nina is a Postdoctoral Research Associate within the Department of Experimental Psychology at the University of Oxford. Her research interests are predominantly within child and adolescent mental health, particularly in the context of depression, anxiety, and OCD. She is also interested in lived experience perspectives, co-production, and favours qualitative methods (although has experience with mixed methods). Nina is one of the blog coordinators at The Mental Elf, focused on commissioning and editing blogs on topics such as youth mental health, OCD, and depression.

More posts

Follow me here –

  • Twitter
Logging In...

Profile cancel

Sign in with Twitter Sign in with Facebook
or

Not published

FOLLOW the Mental Elf

  • Find us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Twitter
  • Follow us on Google+
  • Read our RSS feed
  • Find us on LinkedIn

Are You A Researcher?

Elf Help from the Mental Elf

We can help you share your findings too — find out how.

Recent Posts

  • The diagnosis dilemma: can transdiagnostic approaches close the care gap for distressed youth?
  • The role of shame in hairpulling: understanding adolescents’ experiences
  • What works in domestic abuse and sexual violence services? Encouraging signals, fragmented evidence, and an urgent measurement problem
  • When staff wellbeing programmes backfire: lessons from a systematic review of mental health ward interventions
  • The hidden health burden of intimate partner and child sexual violence

Recent Comments

  • Sameer Jauhar on CBT for depression in primary care: gold standard, or one option among many?
  • Dr Chris Wood on Painting prevention: How the arts promote health and tackle non-communicable diseases
  • Dr Chris Griffiths on Lifestyle interventions for severe mental illness: time to deliver

Free newsletter

Your monthly dose of mental health research, evidence, and impact.

    We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe at any time.
    Built with Kit

    Suggest a paper

    Do you have a suggestion for a paper? Then let us know.

    Click here

    Watch our 2 minute promo video!

    Visit our other Elf blogs

    • Commissioning
    • Dentistry
    • Education
    • Learning Disabilities
    • Mental Health
    • Musculoskeletal
    • Social Care

    Free trial

    Close
    Ready to get started? It's free!
    Sign up now No thanks Tell me more about the benefits of membership

    Free email newsletter

    FOLLOW the Mental Elf

    • Find us on Facebook
    • Follow us on Twitter
    • Follow us on Google+
    • Read our RSS feed
    • Find us on LinkedIn
    © 2026 National Elf Service is brought to you by Minervation Ltd
    Email: [email protected]
    • About
    • Evaluation
    • Site Map
    • Terms
    • Privacy
    • Cookies
    • Log In