Public views of and reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic in England: a qualitative study with diverse ethnicities

  1. Cliodna McNulty
  2. Eirwen Sides
  3. Amy Thomas
  4. Atiya Kamal
  5. Rowshonara B Syeda
  6. Awatif Kaissi
  7. Donna M Lecky
  8. Mahendra Patel
  9. Ines Campos-Matos
  10. Rashmi Shukla
  11. Colin S Brown
  12. Manish Pareek
  13. Loretta Sollars
  14. Laura Nellums
  15. Jane Greenway
  16. Leah Ffion Jones

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

To explore public reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic across diverse ethnic groups.

Design

Remote qualitative interviews and focus groups in English or Punjabi. Data were transcribed and analysed through inductive thematic analysis.

Setting

England and Wales, June to October 2020.

Participants

100 participants from 19 diverse ‘self-identified’ ethnic groups.

Results

Dismay, frustration and altruism were reported across all ethnic groups during the first 6–9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dismay was caused by participants’ reported individual, family and community risks, and loss of support networks. Frustration was caused by reported lack of recognition of the efforts of ethnic minority groups (EMGs), inaction by government to address COVID-19 and inequalities, rule breaking by government advisors, changing government rules around: border controls, personal protective equipment, social distancing, eating out, and perceived poor communication around COVID-19 and the Public Health England COVID-19 disparities report (leading to reported increased racism and social isolation). Altruism was felt by all, in the resilience of National Health Service (NHS) staff and their communities and families pulling together. Data, participants’ suggested actions and the behaviour change wheel informed suggested interventions and policies to help control COVID-19.

Conclusion

To improve trust and compliance future reports or guidance should clearly explain any stated differences in health outcomes by ethnicity or other risk group, including specific messages for these groups and concrete actions to minimise any risks. Messaging should reflect the uncertainty in data or advice and how guidance may change going forward as new evidence becomes available. A contingency plan is needed to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 across all communities including EMGs, the vulnerable and socially disadvantaged individuals, in preparation for any rise in cases and for future pandemics. Equality across ethnicities for healthcare is essential, and the NHS and local communities will need to be supported to attain this.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061027
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.02.02.22270238: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.02.02.22270238 on medRxiv