Facilitators and barriers to successful recruitment into a large comparative effectiveness trial: a qualitative study

Building trust and increasing inclusion in public health research: co-produced strategies for engaging UK ethnic minority communities in research

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) is essential for improved research outcomes and reduced research waste. To be effective, PPIE should provide opportunities for diverse groups to contribute to all research stages. However, UK ethnic minority communities remain underrepresented in research. This article describes strategies adopted in a public health research project that were effective in building trust and increasing inclusion of ethnic minority communities. The study team of researchers and PPIE partners reflects lessons learnt during the project and describe six main strategies that built meaningful levels of trust and inclusion: 1) early start to recruitment of PPIE partners; 2) relationship-focused engagement; 3) co-production and consultation activities; 4) open communication and iterative feedback; 5) co-production of project closure activities, and; 6) diverse research team. Meaningful outcomes for the community included the involvement of people from ethnic minorities as research participants and PPIE partners, community wellbeing, co-production of public health recommendations co-presented at the UK Houses of Parliament, and consortium-wide impact evidenced by the enrolment of 51 active PPIE partners. PPIE partners reflect on their research involvement, offering advice to researchers and encouraging people from ethnic minority communities to take part in research. An important message from PPIE partners is that involvement should not be restricted to projects specific to ethnic minorities but become a routine part of general population research, recognising ethnic minorities as an integral part of UK society. In conclusion, this article demonstrates that with appropriate strategies, inclusion and diversity can be achieved in public health research. We recommend researchers, practitioners and policy makers adopt these strategies when planning their public health projects.

Patient-centered practices for engaging transgender and gender diverse patients in clinical research studies

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this formative study was to assess barriers and facilitators to participation of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) patients in clinical research to solicit specific feedback on perceived acceptability and feasibility of research methods to inform creation of a multisite longitudinal cohort of primary care patients engaged in care at two community health centers.

METHOD

Between September-November 2018, four focus groups (FGs) were convened at two community health centers in Boston, MA and New York, NY (N = 28 participants across all 4 groups; 11 in Boston and 17 in New York). FG guides asked about patient outreach, acceptability of study methods and measures, and ideas for study retention. FGs were facilitated by TGD study staff, lasted approximately 90 min in duration, were audio recorded, and then transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription service. Thematic analyses were conducted by two independent analysts applying a constant comparison method. Consistency and consensus were achieved across code creation and application aided by Dedoose software.

RESULTS

Participants were a mean age of 33.9 years (SD 12.3; Range 18-66). Participants varied in gender identity with 4 (14.3%) men, 3 (10.7%) women, 8 (28.6%) transgender men, 10 (35.7%) transgender women, and 3 (10.7%) nonbinary. Eight (26.6%) were Latinx, 5 (17.9%) Black, 3 (10.7%) Asian, 3 (10.7%) another race, and 5 (17.9%) multiracial. Motivators and facilitators to participation were: research creating community, research led by TGD staff, compensation, research integrated into healthcare, research applicable to TGD and non-TGD people, and research helping TGD communities. Barriers were: being research/healthcare averse, not identifying as TGD, overlooking questioning individuals, research coming from a 'cisgender lens", distrust of how the research will be used, research not being accessible to TGD people, and research being exploitative.

CONCLUSION

Though similarities emerged between the perspectives of TGD people and research citing perspectives of other underserved populations, there are barriers and facilitators to research which are unique to TGD populations. It is important for TGD people to be involved as collaborators in all aspects of research that concerns them.