Correspondence to Dr Vanessa Apea; [email protected]
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY
This project used an adapted form of the rigorous and well-established James Lind Alliance (JLA) priority setting partnership methodology to identify community priorities to inform local and national responses to the pandemic.
The JLA uses a transparent and inclusive method that fosters the trust and confidence of both community participants and policy-making bodies.
The use of online and in-person methods for gathering intervention priorities broadened the diversity of representation.
Despite considerable engagement efforts, certain groups were under-represented, including those aged under 20.
Introduction
Racially minoritised communities (RMCs) were disproportionately affected by COVID-19, experiencing among the highest mortality rates of the UK’s pandemic. In the first months of the pandemic in 2020, the UK Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre found that 33% of COVID-19 patients in intensive care units (ICUs) were from RMCs, despite these groups making up only 14% of the UK population.1 An Office of National Statistics analysis showed that Black males were 4.2 times more likely to die from COVID-19, and Black females were 4.3 times more likely than White ethnic males and females.2 After accounting for age, sex, deprivation and region, for those of Bangladeshi ethnicity, the risk of death was twice as likely as for people of White British ethnicity.3
East London is a densely urbanised area within the UK, home to deprived and multiethnic populations who experienced national and local disparities in health outcomes associated with COVID-19. A study of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 at five acute National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in East London showed stark differences in outcomes, with those from minority ethnic backgrounds being younger, with differing comorbidity profiles and less frailty when compared with White patients.4 Asian and Black patients were more likely to be admitted to an ICU and to receive invasive ventilation. Similar patterns were noted in the USA.5
Responsive and effective interventions are impossible without understanding the complex mix of intersecting structural, contextual and individual factors that are the root causes of wider health inequalities.6 Yet, there are crucial gaps in the understanding of these drivers. There is scarce insight into the lived experiences of RMCs, and within the COVID-19 response, there has been limited meaningful engagement with these communities.7
To address the complex and multifactorial challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, we adopted a participatory and qualitative approach to identify local community priorities for action, specifically focusing on the health and well-being of RMCs in East London. We used an adapted form of the well-established James Lind Alliance (JLA) priority setting partnership (PSP) methodology, a rigorous framework that typically engages patients, carers and clinicians to collaboratively identify and prioritise evidence uncertainties—or ‘unanswered questions’—that they agree are the most important for research in their topic area.8 In this case, our initiative sought to identify and prioritise potential interventions for future research codesign and implementation.
In June 2021, we established the East London Pandemic Recovery PSP for RMCs, to intentionally focus on the unique needs and lived experiences of these communities. A PSP steering group was formed with the aims to (1) explore the structural drivers of health inequalities through the experiences of East London RMCs in the domains of health, education, housing, household dynamics, poverty and employment in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the health and well-being of these communities, with a focus on physical and mental health, community involvement, nutrition, health-seeking behaviour and access to healthcare and (3) facilitate community-defined recommendations for tangible solutions, potentially across these domains, to help inform national and local responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and better support RMCs. Communities represented on our steering group included Black African, Black Caribbean, Somali, South Asian and Bangladeshi.
Methods
The standard four-step JLA process comprises gathering and organising uncertainties, evidence checking to remove answered questions, interim priority setting and final priority setting. This process was adapted to suit the demands of this project while retaining the JLA ethos. The steps are outlined in figure 1. This work was conducted to look beyond health research to focus on interventions and priorities for a specific geographic location and ethnic groups, rather than an area of health or care. In addition, this project determined priorities and interventions of importance to community members, in contrast to the standard JLA focus on identifying research questions.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. (a) Standard and (b) adapted JLA process. JLA, James Lind Alliance; PSP, priority setting partnership.
Set up
The process was led by a clinical academic, in collaboration with the JLA. A steering group was established in June 2021, which included individuals or representatives of community organisations who work with RMCs in East London; three representatives from the local NHS Trust; academic researchers; a local authority representative; the project lead and an independent chairwoman appointed by the JLA. The steering group defined and agreed on the scope of the PSP and published the protocol.9 The JLA adviser provided oversight for the entire process.
Particular community groups required additional consideration, including those whose first language is not English, those who face cultural barriers to discussing certain health issues, those who might be excluded from online surveys due to lack of access or skills, asylum seekers or refugees. The steering group comprised multiple community representatives and advocacy organisations who helped facilitate communication and aid in designing an effective, culturally competent outreach strategy. This included a dedicated social media account (Instagram and Twitter), one-to-one support, community insight discussions, outreach via steering group partners, street engagement and translation via community workers.
Gathering concerns and needs
An online community insight survey, referred to as survey 1, consisting of 44 questions, was designed to collect preliminary data on the impact of COVID-19 and the resulting needs of RMCs residing and working in East London. It was constructed using Qualtrics software (Qualtrics, Provo, Utah). The survey was launched online and promoted on social media to relevant community organisations, local councils, community-related websites and community forums. It was disseminated to RMCs alone across Newham, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest through community and faith groups to self-administer and disseminated via on-street community volunteers using devices to capture people’s responses. Paper copies of the survey were also distributed to local community organisations for attendees to complete—either via self-administration or via administration by a community volunteer based at the organisation. It was open to people aged 16 and above between 26 July 2021 and 19 October 2021.
This survey asked for free-text responses to five prompts:
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on your community.
What helped you and your community during the pandemic?
What was missing in your support during the pandemic?
What support needs to continue as we move through the pandemic?
What else needs to be done and what actions would you like to see in your local area to better support you and your community as we move forward from the pandemic?
It also collected demographic data (age, gender, ethnicity, religion and home borough) and insights on individual experiences of COVID-19 on health, housing, employment, income and other circumstances. See online supplemental file 1 for the full questionnaire.
The demographics of respondents were tracked in real time, and additional promotion was targeted at any under-represented stakeholder groups to ensure balanced and representative distribution of responses.
Following the survey, five community insight discussions were conducted, at random, during community-led events organised by two of the local community organisations represented within the steering group. These discussions were held via telephone or video in line with COVID-19 restrictions in place at the time. These delve deeper into participants’ experiences, needs, concerns and priorities, providing additional context and detailed descriptions of the interventions suggested.
Existing sources of evidence relating to ethnic minority communities and the COVID-19 pandemic were searched. This included research reports/literature, literature reviews, community research into COVID-19 outcomes in East London, community initiatives to capture the lived experiences of RMCs, protocols for systematic reviews being prepared and registers of ongoing research. Sources included PubMed, Google Scholar, online databases and local council repositories.
Organising priorities and interventions
‘Raw’ suggestions and comments indicating individual participants’ priorities and interventions were produced during the consultation process. These were categorised and refined by the PSP lead into summary priorities that were clear and understandable to all. Similar or duplicate priorities were combined where appropriate. This process was overseen by the steering group to ensure that the raw data was interpreted appropriately and that the summary priorities were worded in a way that was comprehensible to all audiences. The JLA adviser observed the process to ensure accountability and transparency.
This resulted in a longlist of in-scope summary priorities and interventions.
Interim priority setting
A subsequent survey (referred to as survey 2) was undertaken between December 2022 and March 2023 to identify which priorities and interventions participants ranked most highly. In this case, the respondents were expanded to include all community members and stakeholders in East London—as opposed to only those from RMCs as in survey 1. The survey asked respondents to indicate which of the longlist of interventions/priority areas identified in survey 1 they felt were needed to address the ongoing impact of COVID-19 on RMCs in East London, as well as to indicate the top 10 that they felt to be most important. See the online supplemental file 1 for the full survey. Dissemination was through the outreach mechanisms used for survey 1, using online and paper versions of the survey.
This process was complemented by community insights and lists of interventions gathered from two sessions with specific groups—one with Somali women and one with Black African carers. These groups were highlighted by community members of the steering group as key groups under-represented with other dissemination strategies.
Priorities were scored by summing individual votes for each response.
The top-ranked and most frequently prioritised interventions from survey 2 were selected for discussion at the final priority-setting workshop, generating a shortlist of 26 items.
Final priority setting
A final priority-setting workshop was held in March 2023 to agree on the ‘Top 10 priorities’ for East London RMCs. The workshop was facilitated by trained JLA advisors, using the nominal group technique (NGT) to build a consensus on the final top 10 priorities through three rounds of group discussion and ranking. The NGT is a well-established and well-documented approach to decision-making. It can be used by groups that want to make decisions quickly but also want everyone’s opinions to be considered.
Participants from the workshop were assigned to three working groups to separately rank the shortlisted questions, facilitated by a JLA advisor. These were then aggregated using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Excel, 2021). Participants then discussed these aggregated rankings in their working groups. The results were collated and discussed in a collective session formed of all participants. All were given the opportunity to express their opinions before the final top 10 priorities were agreed by consensus.
Dissemination strategy
The steering group devised a dissemination strategy that included a lay report, an implementation blog, social media campaigns, a journal article and outreach sessions for the local community, local authority and local health commissioners. Visual minutes were created for the final priority-setting workshop (online supplemental appendix), and key documents were translated into community languages.
Patient and public involvement
Patient and public involvement was at the core of this project, being inherent to the JLA process. Community representatives were central members of the steering community, guiding the development and framing of all stages of the PSP. The coordinating team was able to draw on trusted, longstanding and effective relationships with local communities, third-sector organisations and local authorities to maximise recruitment.
Results
Gathering concerns and needs
Survey 1 had responses from 187 people, generating 816 ideas or ‘raw’ suggestions. Demographic data of respondents are included in table 1.
Table 1Demographic detail of survey 1 respondents (n=187)
| Characteristics | % of Respondents | |
| Sex | Female | 52% |
| Male | 41% | |
| Non-binary | 1% | |
| Did not say | 6% | |
| Age | <20 years | 6% |
| 20–29 years | 30% | |
| 30–39 years | 22% | |
| 40–49 years | 17% | |
| 50–59 years | 8% | |
| 60–69 years | 12% | |
| Unknown | 4% | |
| Ethnic group | African | 25% |
| Any other Asian background | 4% | |
| Any other mixed background | 3% | |
| Arab | 4% | |
| Bangladeshi | 20% | |
| Black Caribbean | 6% | |
| Black other | 9% | |
| Indian | 9% | |
| Mixed—White and Black Caribbean | 4% | |
| Other Asian | 2% | |
| Pakistani | 3% | |
| Somali | 7% | |
| Not disclosed | 5% | |
| Role | Resident of Tower Hamlets, Newham or Waltham Forest | 33% |
| Representative of voluntary community/faith-based organisation | 26% | |
| Public sector representative or worker | 17% | |
| Private business employee/employer | 9% | |
| Academic | 15% |
Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.
The full list of questions is available in the online supplemental appendix.
Five community members across the three boroughs (Newham n=2; Tower Hamlets n=2 and Waltham Forest n=1) were interviewed to gain further community insight and reflections. These provided further context beyond the survey data. For example, participants described interventions that would bring tangible changes in their day-to-day lives. They emphasised the devastating impact of COVID-19, particularly in terms of stress, anxiety and fear, as well as highlighting issues such as loss of work, domestic violence and isolation. However, interviewees also articulated individual and community aspirations for change.
The themes arising from the responses to survey 1 and the interviews with community members are summarised below:
1. Community impact
High rates of illness and death, loss of friends and family, financial impact, job loss, difficult GP access, isolation and institutional racism.
2. What has helped?
Online communication, faith groups, family and friends, food bank and employment services, volunteering, community organisations, government data and reliable publications.
3. What was missing?
Government reassurance, financial support, support in enforcing public health requirements, mental health support, communication from schools and face-to-face medical/dental care.
4. Next actions?
Better access to GP and dental care, financial and employment support, cheaper and faster internet access, flexible working patterns, more language support, better representation and continued public health campaigns.
Organising priorities and interventions
The steering group reviewed a longlist of 40 summary priorities, collated by the PSP lead from the responses from survey 1 (table 2).
Table 240 summary priority interventions
| Number | Category | Suggestion |
| 1 | Advice and welfare support | Expansion of current community-based organisations |
| 2 | Advice and welfare support | Community-based telephone check-in schemes |
| 3 | Advice and welfare support | Increased employer-driven/work-based health awareness initiatives—increased collaboration between employers and local authority |
| 4 | Advice and welfare support | Enhanced long covid community education |
| 5 | Advice and welfare support | Enhanced long covid community-based support/management |
| 6 | Advice and welfare support | Migrant support packages (info/phone credit/clothing/vouchers)—new migrants and established migrants |
| 7 | Social care support | Enhanced community-based support by health visitors |
| 8 | Social care support | Enhanced home support by health visitors |
| 9 | Social care support | Community-based social worker clinics |
| 10 | Social care support | Community check-in scheme—door knocking |
| 11 | Social care support | Social advice spaces—24-hour support—face-to-face/telephone |
| 12 | Health education | Refreshed social media campaign to signpost how to access care—radio, outreach, videos and Whatsapp |
| 13 | Health education | Subscription Whatsapp health education scheme |
| 14 | Health education | Education (health, housing, legal, etc) programmes for faith-based organisations |
| 15 | Health education | Community-based health awareness digital noticeboards |
| 16 | Health education | Community dental care awareness initiatives |
| 17 | Housing support | Emergency accommodation schemes |
| 18 | Housing support | Community support for housing insecurity—homeless/sofa-surfing/pending eviction |
| 19 | Housing support | Refreshed community housing advice and support provided by community organisations |
| 20 | Mental health support | Community mental health support for young people |
| 21 | Mental health support | Drop-in youth spaces dedicated to mental well-being |
| 22 | Mental health support | Increased provision of group-talking therapies for adults |
| 23 | Mental health support | Trauma-informed individual and group counselling |
| 24 | Mental health support | School-based mental health support schemes |
| 25 | Community-based resources | Toiletries banks |
| 26 | Community-based resources | Refreshed food banks and clothes banks |
| 27 | Community-based resources | Community-based after school clubs |
| 28 | Community-based resources | Weekly gardening clubs for adults |
| 29 | Community-based resources | Weekly gardening clubs for young people |
| 30 | Community-based resources | Community-based day centres (face-to-face provision) |
| 31 | Community-based resources | Community kitchens for prepared meals/cooking lessons/nutrition advice |
| 32 | Community-based resources | Social hubs |
| 33 | Community-based resources | Social activities map |
| 34 | Community-based resources | Community clean-up initiatives |
| 35 | Financial support | Family support voucher schemes—school uniforms |
| 36 | Financial support | Family support voucher schemes—food |
| 37 | Financial support | Enhanced school breakfast schemes |
| 38 | Financial support | Supplementary universal credit schemes |
| 39 | Financial support | Free personal protective equipment packs |
| 40 | Financial support | Laptop rental schemes |
Interim priority setting
The second survey was completed by 243 people (191 online responses and 52 paper responses). In terms of demographics, 62% of respondents were female and 51% were 30–49 years. With regard to ethnicity, 25% were white, 18% were of a Black African heritage and 16% were of Bangladeshi origin. The survey identified the final 26 priorities for discussion at the final priority-setting workshop, with separate rankings calculated for community members and wider stakeholders before the final shortlist was produced (table 3).
Table 3Interim priority-setting rank of 26 shortlisted interventions, by participant group
| Community members | Wider stakeholders/professionals | |
| Community-based after school clubs | 20 | 14 |
| Community-based day centres (face-to-face provision) | 6 | 8 |
| Community-based social worker clinics/support centres | 14 | 9 |
| Community kitchens for prepared meals/cooking lessons/nutrition advice | 12 | 15 |
| Community mental health support for young people | 2 | 4 |
| Community support for housing insecurity—homeless/sofa-surfing/pending eviction | 19 | 21 |
| Drop-in youth spaces dedicated to mental well-being | 11 | 5 |
| Education (health, housing, legal, etc) programmes delivered in faith-based organisations | 4 | 11 |
| Emergency accommodation schemes | 3 | 18 |
| Enhanced community-based support by health visitors | 25 | 29 |
| Enhanced school breakfast schemes | 21 | 12 |
| Expansion of current community-based organisations | 9 | 3 |
| Family support voucher schemes—food | 17 | 17 |
| General health education scheme via Whatsapp—people to subscribe to receive regular health updates | 26 | 22 |
| Increased provision of group-talking therapies for adults | 16 | 20 |
| Map of local social activities | 13 | 16 |
| Migrant support packages (info/phone credit/clothing/vouchers)—for both new migrants and established migrants | 7 | 13 |
| More long covid community education | 24 | 25 |
| More long covid community-based support/management | 18 | 28 |
| Refreshed community housing advice and support provided by community organisations | 23 | 19 |
| School-based mental health support schemes | 5 | 2 |
| Social meeting hubs | 1 | 1 |
| Social support spaces—24-hour advice and support—face-to-face/telephone. Spaces to provide signposting to relevant services | 10 | 10 |
| Supplementary universal credit schemes | 22 | 23 |
| Trauma-informed individual and group counselling | 8 | 6 |
| Upgraded food banks and clothes banks | 15 | 7 |
One-to-one sessions and community perspective groups garnered grassroots insights. These encompassed mental health, education and social support, for example, Somali mental health support groups, homework clubs, youth clubs and community activities to provide opportunities for connection and to address loneliness.
Final priority setting
The final priority-setting workshop was attended by 20 participants, both female (n=11) and male (n=9). Participants comprised community residents (n=8), community residents involved in the voluntary sector (n=7), health trust representatives (n=3), a local authority representative (n=1) and an academic (n=1). 18/20 attendees were from RMCs: South Asian (n=5), Black African (n=10) and Black Caribbean (n=3). The shortlist of 26 priorities was ranked to identify the final top 10 priorities (table 4). Differences in the interim rankings between community members and wider stakeholders were discussed as part of the consensus exercise.
Table 4Final top 10 priorities
| 1 | Expansion of current community-based organisations |
| 2 | Education (health, housing, legal, etc) programmes delivered in faith-based organisations |
| 3 | Social support spaces—24 hour advice and support—face-to-face/telephone. Spaces to provide signposting to relevant services |
| 4 | Drop-in youth spaces dedicated to mental well-being |
| 5 | Migrant support packages (info/phone credit/clothing/vouchers)—for both new migrants and established migrants |
| 6 | Community mental health support for young people |
| 7 | Community-based day centres (face-to-face provision) |
| 8 | Trauma-informed individual and group counselling |
| 9 | Emergency accommodation schemes |
| 10 | Community support for housing insecurity—homeless/sofa-surfing/pending eviction |
Dissemination
To date, the findings continue to be disseminated to local communities, local authorities, health commissioners, integrated care boards and local public health departments to raise awareness of the process and the needs identified. This will contribute to shaping current and future local authority-commissioned initiatives and research. Further dissemination via the PSP website, social media and community events is also underway. The methodology used is further disseminated in local academic teaching on participatory methods.
Discussion
To the best of our knowledge, this PSP is the first to address the priorities of RMCs in East London in the context of recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. It is also the first to adapt the rigorous and transparent JLA process to a defined community and location, demonstrating the capacity for a PSP to articulate diverse community-driven priorities for a non-health topic. This project provides an example of meaningful and authentic community engagement to inform future research codesign, which was well received by participants and can be applied to a range of settings. This approach facilitated true community ownership. Local community members and voluntary sector representatives were closely involved throughout the process.
The broad final priority list reflects how profound the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have been in East London, beyond the high mortality and morbidity seen in the initial emergency phase of the pandemic. The disproportionate effects of COVID-19 on ethnic minorities in London have been compounded by socioeconomic inequalities, and these top 10 priorities indicate that recovery will require a multifaceted, structural approach. The PSP has highlighted the range of measures that these communities—particularly Black African, Black Caribbean, Somali and Bangladeshi—identify as priorities to address postpandemic recovery in East London. In keeping with the expanded scope beyond a strictly health-based lens, the priority list spans the expansion of community and faith-based organisations, and increased support for housing, education, mental health, and migrants, with a focus on community support and face-to-face provision. The psychological impact of the pandemic is highlighted by the fact that three of the top 10 priorities address trauma or mental health, particularly among young people. The age profile of survey respondents is notably lower than that of other PSPs.
The final workshop involved considered debate to develop a consensus on the top 10 priorities, with highly ranked shortlisted suggestions such as social meeting hubs and school mental health support schemes not making the final top 10. Clear differences in initial ranking between community members and wider stakeholders were noted, for example, in the need for emergency accommodation schemes and long covid community support (see table 4). This highlights the value of group decision-making and the importance of community-driven insights.
A broad range of participants engaged with the process, which elicited 816 initial suggestions from 187 people. It is an example of a productive partnership between the community, local authorities, NHS and academics, giving voice to individuals from often-underserved groups.
The findings are of relevance beyond COVID-19, with potential application to other disease areas that disproportionately affect RMCs, such as diabetes, fibroids, late-stage cancers and infertility.
Alongside the final prioritisation, the steering group highlighted its own reflections on the PSP process. These included that public engagement and subsequent research should move beyond Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic or ‘BAME’ as a catch-all term. Instead, it is important to be intentional with language throughout the design, piloting and dissemination of projects. Furthermore, providing a plurality of options for the deeply heterogeneous communities you are aiming to engage requires significant investment in creating and building relationships with key local partners.
According to the 2021 census, of the population in East London, 42.1% were of white ethnicity, 32.6% people of South Asian ethnicity and 14.6% people were of Black ethnicity10; indicating the community members engaged in this project were broadly representative of local RMCs. This is a reflection of the variety of methods used to harness community insights, including a self-administered online survey, self-administered paper survey distributed at community locations and community volunteer-administered online and paper surveys and community volunteer-facilitated insight groups. However, limitations of this PSP include possible poor representation from certain groups. For instance, although people under 20 were only a small proportion of respondents to both surveys, multiple priorities in the top 10 (and top 20) focus on initiatives for young people. This highlights the substantial impact of the pandemic on children and young people, particularly in terms of education and mental health, despite the far less severe health impacts of COVID-19 on younger age groups. A further limitation is that significant time elapsed during the course of the PSP process, yet the impact of COVID-19 was rapidly evolving. The initial priorities were set during 2021, a period when England was emerging from lockdowns, while the context was different at the time of the final priority-setting workshop, namely a significant cost of living crisis exacerbating psychosocial need. Therefore, the final top 10 may not fully represent the needs and priorities of RMCs earlier in the pandemic.
Nonetheless, this process provides a valuable articulation of community priorities in East London as the area recovers from COVID-19, which can underpin the development of initiatives to address the health inequalities these communities experience. As the UK focuses on recovery from COVID-19, in a climate of economic uncertainty, this project shows that recovery plans must prioritise a holistic approach to good health which encompasses mental health, secure housing and economic and food security. These priorities can inform the development of tailored interventions for future investigation.
We would like to thank Sundus Abdullai (Social Action for Health); Dianne Barham (Healthwatch); Althea Bart (Barts Health NHS Trust); Angela Basoah (BAME Community Reference Group at Newham Council); Sherina Begum (East London Mosque); Matteo Besana (Doctors of the World); Megan Clinch (Queen Mary University of London); Grainne Colligan (Social Action for Health); Mimi Mzari (Doctors of the World); Yunus Dudhwala (Barts Health NHS Trust); Emmanuel Gotora (Citizen’s UK); Claire Greszczuk (London Borough of Newham); Safia Jama (Women's Inclusive Team); Abbas Mirza (Barts Health NHS Trust); Miski Osman (Barts Health NHS Trust); Afsana Salik (Citizen’s UK); Sarah Teather (Jesuit Refugee Service) and the East London communities who participated.
Data availability statement
Data are available in a public, open access repository. Data are available upon reasonable request. The top 10 and the full longlist of indicative questions are available on the JLA website https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/priority-setting-partnerships/east-london-pandemic-PSP-for-ethnic-minority-communities/index. For further information, please contact the corresponding author.
Ethics statements
Patient consent for publication
Not applicable.
Ethics approval
This study involves human participants but was not approved. The UK Health Research Authority (HRA) decision aid identified no need for research ethics approval. The people who took part in the survey and priority setting stages of this project are not research participants.11 All data were anonymised. Participant informed consent for survey respondents and workshop attendees was not required.
Contributors VA, CO and SK contributed to the conceptualisation of this study, design of the methodology and funding acquisition. VA and SK were responsible for data collection and analysis during the project. All authors contributed to data interpretation. IW and VA wrote the original draft of this manuscript. All authors critically reviewed and edited the manuscript and agreed with the decision to submit it for publication. VA is responsible for the overall content as the guarantor.
Funding Funding for this PSP was provided by Barts Charity—grant number: G-001939.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were involved in the design, conduct, reporting or dissemination plans of this research. Refer to the Methods section for further details.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
1 Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre. ICNARC report on COVID 19 in critical care 29 May 2020. London, 2020.
2 Office for National Statistics. Coronavirus (COVID-19) related deaths by ethnic group, England and Wales: 2 March 2020 to 10 April 2020. 2021. Available: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/coronavirusrelateddeathsbyethnicgroupenglandandwales/2march2020to10april2020
3 Public Health England. Disparities in the risk and outcomes of COVID-19. 2020. Available: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/908434/Disparities_in_the_risk_and_outcomes_of_COVID_August_2020_update.pdf
4 Apea VJ, Wan YI, Dhairyawan R, et al. Ethnicity and outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 infection in East London: an observational cohort study. BMJ Open 2021; 11: e042140. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042140
5 Acosta AM, Garg S, Pham H, et al. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Rates of COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization, Intensive Care Unit Admission, and In-Hospital Death in the United States From March 2020 to February 2021. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4: e2130479. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.30479
6 Public Health England. Place-based approaches for reducing health inequalities: main report. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-inequalities-place-based-approaches-to-reduce-inequalities/place-based-approaches-for-reducing-health-inequalities-main-report
7 Public Health England. Beyond the data: understanding the impact of COVID-19 on bame groups, London. 2020. Available: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/892376/COVID_stakeholder_engagement_synthesis_beyond_the_data.pdf
8 James Lind Alliance. About priority setting partnerships. Available: https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/about-the-james-lind-alliance/about-psps.htm
9 James Lind Alliance. East London pandemic PSP for ethnic minority communities (priority setting in association with the JLA). 2021. Available: https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/priority-setting-partnerships/east-london-pandemic-PSP-for-ethnic-minority-communities/index
10 Office of Naional Statistics. Census. 2021. Available: https://www.ons.gov.uk/census
11 INVOLVE and Health Research Authority. Public involvement in research and research ethics committee review. 2016.
© 2025 Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2025. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ Group. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ . Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Whelan, Isabelle 1 ; Kinsella, Suzannah 2 ; Orkin, Chloe 3
1 Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
2 James Lind Alliance, Southampton, UK
3 Queen Mary University of London, London, UK