Relationships between community-led mutual aid groups and the state during the COVID-19 pandemic: complementary, supplementary, or adversarial?

This research explores ways public service ecosystems developed during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on relationships between community-led mutual aid groups and the state. Data were collected through in-depth interviews, focus groups, and mobile ethnographic methods with 30 participants from the public sector and three mutual aid groups across Scotland. We show how relationships between mutual aid groups and the state - whether complementary, supplementary, or adversarial - shifted over the course of the pandemic. Our findings add nuance to understandings that presuppose mutual aid as antagonistic, highlighting ways that mutual aid groups may be brought into existing public service ecosystems.

From polarity to plurality: Perceptions of COVID-19 and policy measures in England and Scotland.

AIM: The aim of this study was to uncover perspectives on the COVID-19 pandemic and the responses implemented by the UK and Scottish Governments to help control the spread of infection. Such understanding could help to inform future responses to pandemics at individual, community and national levels. METHOD: Q methodology was used to elicit perspectives from people in England and Scotland with different experiences of the pandemic including public health officials, key workers, those on furlough, those who were unvaccinated or vaccinated to different levels, those who were 'shielding' because they were at higher risk and people with different scientific expertise. Participants rank-ordered phrases about different aspects of COVID-19 according to their viewpoint. Factor analysis was then conducted in conjunction with interview material from the same respondents. RESULTS: A four-factor solution was statistically supported and was interpretable alongside the qualitative accounts of participants loading on these factors. These four perspectives are titled Dangerous and Unaccountable Leadership, Fear and Anger at Policy and Public responses, Governing Through a Crisis and Injustices Exposed. CONCLUSION: The four perspectives demonstrate plurality and nuance in views on COVID-19 and the associated policies and restrictions, going beyond a binary narrative that has been apparent in popular and social media. The four perspectives include some areas of common ground, as well as disagreement. We argue that understanding the detail of different perspectives might be used to build cohesion around policy initiatives in future. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The development of the statement set, which is rank-ordered by participants in a Q study, and factor interpretations were informed by views of the general public. The statement set was initially developed using existing publicly available material based on members of the general public experiencing the pandemic first hand. It was then piloted with members of the public experiencing different challenges as a result of COVID-19 and the subsequent lockdown and updated based on feedback. Finally, interpretations of the identified factors were presented publicly and edited according to their feedback.

Common health assets protocol: a mixed-methods, realist evaluation and economic appraisal of how community-led organisations (CLOs) impact on the health and well-being of people living in deprived areas.

INTRODUCTION: This research investigates how community-led organisations' (CLOs') use of assets-based approaches improves health and well-being, and how that might be different in different contexts. Assets-based approaches involve 'doing with' rather than 'doing to' and bring people in communities together to achieve positive change using their own knowledge, skills and experience. Some studies have shown that such approaches can have a positive effect on health and well-being. However, research is limited, and we know little about which approaches lead to which outcomes and how different contexts might affect success. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using a realist approach, we will work with 15 CLOs based in disadvantaged communities in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. A realist synthesis of review papers, and a policy analysis in different contexts, precedes qualitative interviews and workshops with stakeholders, to find out how CLOs' programmes work and identify existing data. We will explore participants' experiences through: a Q methodology study; participatory photography workshops; qualitative interviews and measure outcomes using a longitudinal survey, with 225 CLO participants, to assess impact for people who connect with the CLOs. An economic analysis will estimate costs and benefits to participants, for different contexts and mechanisms. A 'Lived Experience Panel' of people connected with our CLOs as participants or volunteers, will ensure the appropriateness of the research, interpretation and reporting of findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This project, research tools and consent processes have been approved by the Glasgow Caledonian University School of Health and Life Sciences Ethics Committee, and affirmed by Ethics Committees at Bournemouth University, Queen's University Belfast and the University of East London. Common Health Assets does not involve any National Health Service sites, staff or patients.Findings will be presented through social media, project website, blogs, policy briefings, journal articles, conferences and visually in short digital stories, and photographic exhibitions.