Socio-economic outcomes of COVID-19 on the marginalised: Who have taken the hardest hit?

This article aims to examine the socioeconomic outcomes of COVID-19 for socially marginalised people who are clients of social care organisations (e.g. people experiencing homelessness), and the factors influencing these outcomes. We tested the role of individual and socio-structural variables in determining socioeconomic outcomes based on a cross-sectional survey with 273 participants from eight European countries and 32 interviews and five workshops with managers and staff of social care organisations in ten European countries. 39% of the respondents agreed that the pandemic has had a negative effect on their income and access to shelter and food. The most common negative socio-economic outcome of the pandemic was loss of work (65% of respondents). According to multivariate regression analysis, variables such as being of a young age, being an immigrant/asylum seeker or residing in the country without documentation, living in your own home, and having (in)formal paid work as the main source of income are related to negative socio-economic outcomes following the COVID-19 pandemic. Factors such as individual psychological resilience and receiving social benefits as the main source of income tend to "protect" respondents from negative impacts. Qualitative results indicate that care organisations have been an important source of economic and psycho-social support, particularly significant in times of a huge surge in demand for services during the long-term crises of pandemic.

More than participatory? From ‘compensatory' towards ‘expressive' remote practices using digital technologies

Based on the shift from face-to-face participatory action research (PAR) with groups in situations of vulnerability to digital methods during COVID-19, we reflect on how we can go beyond compensating for the physical absence of the researcher from the field. We argue that instead of simply aiming to replace face-to-face research with a digital equivalent for maintaining ‘participatory' and ‘inclusive' research practices, remote practices have the potential of being more-than compensatory. We suggest that when producing multi-method digital approaches, we need to go beyond a concern with participant access to remote practices. By rethinking remote PAR in the light of expressive rather than participatory research practices, we critically reflect on the (sometimes experimental) process of trying out different digital research method(s) with Brazilian youth in situations of digital marginalisation, including the initial ‘failures' and lessons learned in encouraging diverse forms of participant expression, and ownership using WhatsApp. © The Author(s) 2023.

Conceptualising Inclusion and Participation in the Promotion of Healthy Lifestyles.

The central tension in health promotion is between a public health policy presumption that healthy lifestyles have benefits at both the individual and societal levels and should be assertively encouraged, and liberal demands that states should maintain a stance of non-interference concerning private affairs. This tension is heightened when the engagement of marginalised or disempowered groups, such as persons with disabilities, women, or immigrants, enter discussions. This paper examines the concept of inclusion within the context of the promotion of healthy lifestyles, primarily sport and physical activity in community contexts. Using a form of 'reflective equilibrium', it explores a series of distinctions to evaluate critically different accounts of inclusion and offers a novel and somewhat radical approach based on re-interpretations and alignments of participation and hegemonic relationships.

Challenges and adaptations to public involvement with marginalised groups during the COVID-19 pandemic: commentary with illustrative case studies in the context of patient safety research.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is integral to research on patient safety in the NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (NIHR GMPSTRC), and is central to our patient safety research within our theme focusing on people in marginalised groups. Due to the impact of COVID-19, researchers had to adapt how they do PPI. For marginalised groups, remote working and digital adaptations (the key adaptations made in accessing and utilising health services in the United Kingdom during COVID-19) can potentially lead to further marginalisation of people already marginalised and provide new barriers to others. This editorial showcases three case examples of PPI with marginalised groups during COVID-19, these are with: (1) adults with vision impairments, (2) adults and carers with lived experience of self-harm and/ or suicide and (3) adults with lived experience of homelessness. In these case examples, we focus on challenges relating to key aspects of PPI during the pandemic. First, setting up a PPI advisory group and secondly maintaining relationships and effective PPI with a pre-existing advisory group. We contrast these examples using more traditional ways of 'doing PPI' i.e. involving public contributors in various stages of the research cycle, with a more fully 'co-produced' approach to research when developing a new patient safety intervention. Important considerations for PPI with marginalised groups during COVID-19 include: how to avoid exacerbating the digital divide when using video conferencing for PPI, the need for enhanced awareness around flexibility and resources, and the value of working closely with specialist charities to enable adaptations that are sensitive to the changed circumstances and needs of PPI contributors.

The National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational research Centre (GMPSTRC) carries out research to improve patient safety. We work in partnership with patients and members of the public to plan, manage, design, and carry out the research. This is labelled as patient and public involvement. A key area of GMPSTRC research focuses on people who may be marginalised from healthcare and potentially suffer increased patient safety risks relative to the general population. COVID-19 impacted on research in multiple ways, notably how researchers work with members of the public. Remote working via the use of internet enabled technology has now become more commonplace, although this raises concerns about digital exclusion and how to address barriers when face-to-face PPI is not possible. This article showcases three examples of how researchers and public contributors with lived experience have adapted to working together during the COVID-19 pandemic. These case examples are: (1) setting up a public involvement group for developing an intervention to reduce medication errors for adults with vision impairments; (2) working with a pre-existing group of public contributors who are adults and carers with lived experience of self-harm and/or suicide; and (3) working with a charity called Groundswell who train and support researchers with lived experience of homelessness. Challenges during COVID-19 have been making video conferencing meetings accessible to members who have a range of different needs, and addressing the digital divide by allowing members flexibility in how they contribute to research. The article provides examples of how these challenges were addressed.

An exploration of the impact of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) restrictions on marginalised groups in the UK.

BACKGROUND: To contain the spread of COVID-19 within the UK over the past year, there have been a series of local and national lockdowns. These restrictions are likely to have impacted upon the health and well-being of marginalised groups who rely on now closed social and community support services to stay healthy. An understanding of the experiences of marginalised people is important; therefore, this study aimed to explore the impact of the COVID-19 restrictions on the health and well-being of marginalised groups in the UK. METHODS: In summer 2020, a rapid telephone survey was conducted by trained, trusted volunteers with 76 participants who were from marginalised groups. As part of this survey, 64 participants consented to describe their experience of lockdown. These case studies were thematically analysed to identify patterns of meaning. RESULTS: Findings indicate that lockdown led to the deterioration of health of participants, impacted adversely on their socio-economic positions and affected access to food and essential supplies. In addition, government public health messaging was considered confusing and inadequate. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the need for pathways into services which support marginalised groups to remain accessible during periods of restrictions and essential supplies and food to be mapped and protected for marginalised individuals within our local communities.