Reflections on co-production: Developing a dementia research funding application with a diverse lived experience group.

Introduction and Background to Study: Published work on dementia research co-production focuses on developing health and social care interventions. Less is written about practicalities and experiences of co-producing dementia research funding applications. UK public contributors are typically from white middle class populations. Widening involvement is essential for co-produced research that meaningfully addresses health inequalities. We provide an example of a diverse lived experience group co-producing a dementia research funding application. An NIHR Dementia Career Development award funded PPIE work to develop a broad research idea. A culturally diverse lived experience group consisted of one person living with dementia, four carers and one former carer. Virtual group sessions drew on each person's unique experiences and expertise. Two co-leads collaborated closely with the researcher. Methods: We reflected on our experiences of diversity and inclusion within the group, based on a coproduced set of questions to guide reflection. Written records of reflections were captured and refined by the group. Results: We structured reflections into three overarching categories: Diversity and inclusion, Benefits to group members and Challenges. The group felt empowered, heard, and like equals in the process. Members valued diversity and mutual learning within the group. Involvement of co-leads was seen as democratic and inclusive. Some members felt Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) discussions were challenging. Discussion and Conclusions: We share valuable lessons learned in the process, including suggestions for facilitating EDI discussions, building in funding for time and travel to support relationship building, and ensuring PPIE remuneration processes are accessible and streamlined.

Patient and public involvement and engagement with underserved communities in dementia research: Reporting on a partnership to co-design a website for postdiagnostic dementia support.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the advancements in Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE), the voices of traditionally underserved groups are still poorly reflected in dementia research. This study aimed to report on a PPIE partnership between academics and members of the public from underserved communities to co-design Forward with Dementia-Social Care, a resource and information website supporting people receiving a dementia diagnosis. METHODS: The PPIE partnership was set up in four stages: 1-identifying communities that have been under-represented from PPIE in dementia research; 2-recruiting PPIE partners from these communities; 3-supporting PPIE partners to become confident to undertake their research roles and 4-undertaking research co-design activities in an equitable fashion. RESULTS: To address under-representation from PPIE in dementia research we recruited seven PPIE partners from Black, Asian and other minority ethnic groups; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer+ communities; remote/rural area; religious minorities and partners living with rare forms of dementia. The partners met regularly throughout the project to oversee new sections for the study website, refine existing content and promote the website within their communities. CONCLUSION: Strategies can be used to successfully recruit and involve PPIE partners from underserved communities in co-design activities. These include networking with community leaders, developing terms of reference, setting out 'rules of engagement', and investing adequate resources and time for accessible and equitable involvement. These efforts facilitate the co-design of research outputs that reflect the diversity and complexity of UK contemporary society. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study received support from seven members of the public with lived experience of dementia from communities that have been traditionally underserved in dementia research. These seven members of the public undertook the role of partners in the study. They all equally contributed to the study design, recruitment of participants, development and revision of topic guides for the interviews and development of the website. Three of these partners were also co-authors of this paper. On top of the activities shared with the other partners, they contributed to write independently of the academic team the section in this paper titled 'Partners' experiences, benefits and challenges of the partnership'. Further, they provided input in other sections of the paper on a par with the other (academic) co-authors.

Beyond Information Provision: Analysis of the Roles of Structure and Agency in COVID-19 Vaccine Confidence in Ethnic Minority Communities.

People from Black and Asian backgrounds are more likely to die from COVID-19 but less likely to be vaccinated, threatening to exacerbate health inequalities already experienced by ethnic minority groups. The literature suggests that mistrust rooted in structural inequality (including socioeconomic position and experience of racism) may be a key barrier to COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Understanding and addressing structural inequality is likely to lead to longer-term impacts than information alone. The aim of this study is to draw on health and sociological theories of structure and agency to inform our understanding of how structural factors influence vaccine confidence. We conducted qualitative interviews and focus groups with 22 people from London and the surrounding areas from December 2021 to March 2022. Fourteen participants were members of the public from ethnic minority backgrounds, and seven were professionals working with the public to address concerns and encourage vaccine uptake. Our findings suggest that people from ethnic minority backgrounds make decisions regarding COVID-19 vaccination based on a combination of how they experience external social structures (including lack of credibility and clarity from political authority, neglect by health services, and structural racism) and internal processes (weighing up COVID-19 vaccine harms and benefits and concerns about vaccine development and deployment). We may be able to support knowledge accumulation through the provision of reliable and accessible information, particularly through primary and community care, but we recommend a number of changes to research, policy and practice that address structural inequalities. These include working with communities to improve ethnicity data collection, increasing funding allocation to health conditions where ethnic minority communities experience poorer outcomes, greater transparency and public engagement in the vaccine development process, and culturally adapted research recruitment processes.