'If relevant, yes; if not, no': General practitioner (GP) users and GP perceptions about asking ethnicity questions in Irish general practice: A qualitative analysis using Normalization Process Theory.

CONTEXT: The use of ethnic identifiers in health systems is recommended in several European countries as a means to identify and address heath inequities. There are barriers to implementation that have not been researched. OBJECTIVE: This study examines whether and how ethnicity data can be collected in Irish general practices in a meaningful and acceptable way. METHODS: Qualitative case study data generation was informed by Normalization Process Theory (NPT) constructs about 'sense' making and 'engagement'. It consisted of individual interviews and focus group discussions based on visual participatory techniques. There were 70 informants, including 62 general practitioner (GP) users of diverse ethnic backgrounds recruited through community organisations and eight GPs identified through an inter-agency steering group. Data were analysed according to principles of thematic analysis using NPT. RESULTS: The link between ethnicity and health was often considered relevant because GP users grasped connections with genetic (skin colour, lactose intolerance), geographic (prevalence of disease, early years exposure), behavioural (culture/food) and social determinant (housing) factors. The link was less clear with religion. There was some scepticism and questions about how the collection of data would benefit GP consultations and concerns regarding confidentiality and the actual uses of these data (e.g. risk of discrimination, social control). For GPs, the main theme discussed was relevance: what added value would it bring to their consultations and was it was their role to collect these data? Their biggest concern was about data protection issues in light of the European Union (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The difficulty in explaining a complex concept such as 'ethnicity' in the limited time available in consultations was also worrying. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an ethnicity identifier in Irish general practices will require a strong rationale that makes sense to GP users, and specific measures to ensure that its benefits outweigh any potential harm. This is in line with both our participants' views and the EU GDPR.

Ethnic Minority Health in Ireland-Co-creating knowledge (EMH-IC): a participatory health research protocol.

INTRODUCTION: International policy recommends continuous, cost-effective monitoring of health data to enable health services to identify and respond to health inequities as experienced by different ethnic groups. However, there is a lack of routinely collected ethnicity data, particularly in primary care, and very little implementation research internationally to understand how ethnic identifiers are introduced, embedded and used in healthcare settings. This paper describes a protocol for a novel participatory health research project with the objective of building the evidence base on ethnic minority health in Ireland. Findings on the participatory appraisal of ethnic identifiers as an intervention to generate useful data about minority and majority ethnic groups will have relevance in other settings and countries. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multidisciplinary project is designed as a participatory health research study where all stakeholders, including ethnic minority communities, participate in co-design of the research protocol, project governance, collaborative data interpretation and disseminating findings. A national catalogue of all routinely collected health data repositories will be electronically searched for any repositories that contain information on ethnicity. A secondary quantitative analysis of a population-representative cohort study, Growing Up in Ireland, will be carried out to compare the health of ethnic minority and majority groups. A qualitative case study informed by normalisation process theory will be carried out at three primary care sites to monitor the implementation of an ethnic identifier and identify barriers and levers to implementation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the qualitative case study has been granted by the Irish Council for General Practitioners (06/09/17). Permission to access data from Growing Up in Ireland has been granted by the Director General of the Central Statistics Office. Dissemination will be carried out at community events and academic conferences, in peer-reviewed journal publications, and through academic and healthcare provider networks.

Exploring levers and barriers to accessing primary care for marginalised groups and identifying their priorities for primary care provision: a participatory learning and action research study.

BACKGROUND: The involvement of patients and the public in healthcare has grown significantly in recent decades and is documented in health policy documents internationally. Many benefits of involving these groups in primary care planning have been reported. However, these benefits are rarely felt by those considered marginalised in society and they are often excluded from participating in the process of planning primary care. It has been recommended to employ suitable approaches, such as co-operative and participatory initiatives, to enable marginalised groups to highlight their priorities for care. METHODS: This Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) research study involved 21 members of various marginalised groups who contributed their views about access to primary care. Using a series of PLA techniques for data generation and co-analysis, we explored barriers and facilitators to primary healthcare access from the perspective of migrants, Irish Travellers, homeless people, drug users, sex workers and people living in deprivation, and identified their priorities for action with regard to primary care provision. RESULTS: Four overarching themes were identified: the home environment, the effects of the 'two-tier' healthcare system on engagement, healthcare encounters, and the complex health needs of many in those groups. The study demonstrates that there are many complicated personal and structural barriers to accessing primary healthcare for marginalised groups. There were shared and differential experiences across the groups. Participants also expressed shared priorities for action in the planning and running of primary care services. CONCLUSIONS: Members of marginalised groups have shared priorities for action to improve their access to primary care. If steps are taken to address these, there is scope to impact on more than one marginalised group and to address the existing health inequities.