4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      On race and ethnicity during a global pandemic: An ‘imperfect mosaic’ of maternal and child health services in ethnically-diverse South London, United Kingdom

      research-article
      a , * , a , a , a , a , b , c , a , a , a
      eClinicalMedicine
      Elsevier
      Race, Ethnicity, Equity, Discrimination, Maternity care, Obstetrics, Midwifery, Children's health, Neonatal care, Paediatrics, Qualitative research, Interviews, Grounded theory, The NHS, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, Pandemic, Health services research, Brexit, The Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, NHS, National Health Service, PPIE, Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement, RCM, Royal College of Midwives, RCOG, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, SARS-CoV-2, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (a.k.a. COVID-19), UK, United Kingdom

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has brought racial and ethnic inequity into sharp focus, as Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic people were reported to have greater clinical vulnerability. During the pandemic, priority was given to ongoing, reconfigured maternity and children's healthcare. This study aimed to understand the intersection between race and ethnicity, and healthcare provision amongst maternity and children's healthcare professionals, during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

          Methods

          A qualitative study consisting of semi-structured interviews ( N = 53) was undertaken with maternity ( n = 29; August-November 2020) and children's ( n = 24; June-July 2021) healthcare professionals from an NHS Trust in ethnically-diverse South London, UK. Data pertinent to ethnicity and race were subject to Grounded Theory Analysis, whereby data was subjected to iterative coding and interpretive analysis. Using this methodology, data are compared between transcripts to generate lower and higher order codes, before super-categories are formed, which are finally worked into themes. The inter-relationship between these themes is interpreted as a final theory.

          Findings

          Grounded Theory Analysis led to the theory: An ‘Imperfect Mosaic’, comprising four themes: (1) ‘A System Set in Plaster’; (2) ‘The Marginalised Majority’; (3) ‘Self-Discharging Responsibility for Change-Making’; and (4) ‘Slow Progress, Not No Progress’. The NHS was observed to be brittle, lacking plasticity to deliver change at pace. Overt racism based on skin colour has been replaced by micro-aggressions between in-groups and out-groups, defined not just by ethnicity, but by other social determinants. Contemporaneously, responsibility for health, wellbeing, and psychological safety in the workplace is discharged to, and accepted by, the individual.

          Interpretation

          Our findings suggest three practicable solutions: (1) Representation of marginalised groups at all NHS levels; (2) Engagement in cultural humility which extends to other social factors; and (3) Collective action at system and individual levels, including prioritising equity over simplistic notions of equality.

          Funding

          This service evaluation was supported by the King's College London King's Together Rapid COVID-19 Call, successfully awarded to Laura A. Magee, Sergio A. Silverio, Abigail Easter, & colleagues (reference:- 204823/Z/16/Z), as part of a rapid response call for research proposals. The King's Together Fund is a Wellcome Trust funded initiative.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period

          Background Choosing a suitable sample size in qualitative research is an area of conceptual debate and practical uncertainty. That sample size principles, guidelines and tools have been developed to enable researchers to set, and justify the acceptability of, their sample size is an indication that the issue constitutes an important marker of the quality of qualitative research. Nevertheless, research shows that sample size sufficiency reporting is often poor, if not absent, across a range of disciplinary fields. Methods A systematic analysis of single-interview-per-participant designs within three health-related journals from the disciplines of psychology, sociology and medicine, over a 15-year period, was conducted to examine whether and how sample sizes were justified and how sample size was characterised and discussed by authors. Data pertinent to sample size were extracted and analysed using qualitative and quantitative analytic techniques. Results Our findings demonstrate that provision of sample size justifications in qualitative health research is limited; is not contingent on the number of interviews; and relates to the journal of publication. Defence of sample size was most frequently supported across all three journals with reference to the principle of saturation and to pragmatic considerations. Qualitative sample sizes were predominantly – and often without justification – characterised as insufficient (i.e., ‘small’) and discussed in the context of study limitations. Sample size insufficiency was seen to threaten the validity and generalizability of studies’ results, with the latter being frequently conceived in nomothetic terms. Conclusions We recommend, firstly, that qualitative health researchers be more transparent about evaluations of their sample size sufficiency, situating these within broader and more encompassing assessments of data adequacy. Secondly, we invite researchers critically to consider how saturation parameters found in prior methodological studies and sample size community norms might best inform, and apply to, their own project and encourage that data adequacy is best appraised with reference to features that are intrinsic to the study at hand. Finally, those reviewing papers have a vital role in supporting and encouraging transparent study-specific reporting. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0594-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Using Zoom Videoconferencing for Qualitative Data Collection: Perceptions and Experiences of Researchers and Participants

            Advances in communication technologies offer new opportunities for the conduct of qualitative research. Among these, Zoom—an innovative videoconferencing platform—has a number of unique features that enhance its potential appeal to qualitative and mixed-methods researchers. Although studies have explored the use of information and communication technologies for conducting research, few have explored both researcher and participant perspectives on the use of web and videoconferencing platforms. Further, data are lacking on the benefits and challenges of using Zoom as a data collection method. In this study, we explore the feasibility and acceptability of using Zoom to collect qualitative interview data within a health research context in order to better understand its suitability for qualitative and mixed-methods researchers. We asked 16 practice nurses who participated in online qualitative interviews about their experiences of using Zoom and concurrently recorded researcher observations. Although several participants experienced technical difficulties, most described their interview experience as highly satisfactory and generally rated Zoom above alternative interviewing mediums such as face-to-face, telephone, and other videoconferencing services, platforms, and products. Findings suggest the viability of Zoom as a tool for collection of qualitative data because of its relative ease of use, cost-effectiveness, data management features, and security options. Further research exploring the utility of Zoom is recommended in order to critically assess and advance innovations in online methods.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Determining Sample Size

              J M Morse (2000)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                eClinicalMedicine
                EClinicalMedicine
                eClinicalMedicine
                Elsevier
                2589-5370
                29 May 2022
                June 2022
                29 May 2022
                : 48
                : 101433
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Women & Children's Health, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, St. Thomas’ Hospital, 10th Floor North Wing, St. Thomas’ Hospital, Westminster Bridge Road, Lambeth, London SE1 7EH, United Kingdom
                [b ]Chief Midwifery Office, NHS England and Improvement, Wellington House, 133-155 Waterloo Road, Southwark, London SE1 8UG, United Kingdom
                [c ]Maternity Services, St. Thomas’ Hospital, Guy's and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, Westminster Bridge Road, Lambeth, London SE1 7EH, United Kingdom
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. Sergio.Silverio@ 123456kcl.ac.uk
                Article
                S2589-5370(22)00163-8 101433
                10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101433
                9249549
                35783482
                6bf8dad4-c246-42cf-9841-944ee3d31ebb
                © 2022 The Author(s)

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 16 February 2022
                : 11 April 2022
                : 12 April 2022
                Categories
                Articles

                race,ethnicity,equity,discrimination,maternity care,obstetrics,midwifery,children's health,neonatal care,paediatrics,qualitative research,interviews,grounded theory,the nhs,sars-cov-2,covid-19,pandemic,health services research,brexit, the withdrawal of the united kingdom from the european union,nhs, national health service,ppie, patient and public involvement and engagement,rcm, royal college of midwives,rcog, royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists,sars-cov-2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (a.k.a. covid-19),uk, united kingdom

                Comments

                Comment on this article