8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      “I’ll meet you at our bench”: adaptation, innovation and resilience among VCSE organisations who supported marginalised and minoritised communities during the Covid-19 pandemic in Northern England – a qualitative focus group study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated pre-existing inequalities and increased adversity and challenges for vulnerable and marginalised communities worldwide. In the UK, the Voluntary Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector play a vital role in supporting the health and wellbeing of people who are marginalised or experiencing multiple complex needs. However, only a small number of studies have focused on the impact that Covid-19 had on the VCSE sector.

          Methods

          As part of a Health Inequalities Impact Assessment (HIIA), we conducted qualitative focus groups with staff and volunteers from five organisations to examine short, medium and longer-term impacts of Covid-19 upon the VCSE sector in Northern England. Nine online focus groups were conducted between March and July 2021.

          Findings

          Focus group transcripts were analysed using Framework Analysis and yielded three central themes: (1) exacerbation of pre-existing inequalities, adversity and challenges for vulnerable and marginalised populations; (2) the ‘price’ of being flexible, innovative and agile for VCSE staff and volunteers; and (3) the voluntary sector as a ‘lifeline’ - organisational pride and resilience.

          Conclusions

          While the voluntary sector ‘adapted at pace’ to provide support during Covid-19 and in its continued aftermath, this resilience has potentially come at the cost of workforce and volunteer wellbeing, compounded by political obstacles and chronic shortage in funding and support. The VCSE sector has a vital role to play in the post-lockdown ‘levelling up’ agenda. The expertise, capacity and resilience of VCSE organisations, and their ability to respond to Covid-19, should be celebrated, recognised and supported adequately to maintain its resilience. To not do so threatens the sector’s sustainability and risks jeopardising attempts to involve the sector in addressing the social determinants of health.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-023-10435-5.

          Related collections

          Most cited references51

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

          Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research

            Background The Framework Method is becoming an increasingly popular approach to the management and analysis of qualitative data in health research. However, there is confusion about its potential application and limitations. Discussion The article discusses when it is appropriate to adopt the Framework Method and explains the procedure for using it in multi-disciplinary health research teams, or those that involve clinicians, patients and lay people. The stages of the method are illustrated using examples from a published study. Summary Used effectively, with the leadership of an experienced qualitative researcher, the Framework Method is a systematic and flexible approach to analysing qualitative data and is appropriate for use in research teams even where not all members have previous experience of conducting qualitative research.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Critical Analysis of Strategies for Determining Rigor in Qualitative Inquiry.

              Criteria for determining the trustworthiness of qualitative research were introduced by Guba and Lincoln in the 1980s when they replaced terminology for achieving rigor, reliability, validity, and generalizability with dependability, credibility, and transferability. Strategies for achieving trustworthiness were also introduced. This landmark contribution to qualitative research remains in use today, with only minor modifications in format. Despite the significance of this contribution over the past four decades, the strategies recommended to achieve trustworthiness have not been critically examined. Recommendations for where, why, and how to use these strategies have not been developed, and how well they achieve their intended goal has not been examined. We do not know, for example, what impact these strategies have on the completed research. In this article, I critique these strategies. I recommend that qualitative researchers return to the terminology of social sciences, using rigor, reliability, validity, and generalizability. I then make recommendations for the appropriate use of the strategies recommended to achieve rigor: prolonged engagement, persistent observation, and thick, rich description; inter-rater reliability, negative case analysis; peer review or debriefing; clarifying researcher bias; member checking; external audits; and triangulation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                steph.scott@ncl.ac.uk
                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6963
                3 January 2024
                3 January 2024
                2024
                : 24
                : 7
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, ( https://ror.org/01kj2bm70) Sir James Spence Building, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 4LP UK
                [2 ]ScotCen, Scotiabank House, 6 South Charlotte Street, Edinburgh, EH2 4AW UK
                [3 ]Institute of Health, University of Cumbria, ( https://ror.org/05gd22996) Fusehill Street, Carlisle, CA1 2HH UK
                [4 ]VONNE, 4th Floor, MEA House, Ellison Place, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, NE1 8XS UK
                [5 ]Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, Department of Health and Social Care, Waterfront 4, Goldcrest Way, Newburn Riverside, NE15 8NY Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
                [6 ]NIHR Applied Research Collaboration North East and North Cumbria, St Nicholas’ Hospital, ( https://ror.org/0579rm888) Jubilee Road, Gosforth, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE3 3XT UK
                Article
                10435
                10.1186/s12913-023-10435-5
                10765907
                38172856
                3a2056b4-7aeb-48dd-bd97-7b552c9ce650
                © The Author(s) 2023

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 3 April 2023
                : 5 December 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) [Applied Research Collaboration North East and North Cumbria
                Award ID: NIHR200173
                Award ID: NIHR200173
                Award ID: NIHR200173
                Award ID: NIHR200173
                Award ID: NIHR200173
                Award ID: NIHR200173
                Award ID: NIHR200173
                Award ID: NIHR200173
                Award ID: NIHR200173
                Award ID: NIHR200173
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024

                Health & Social care
                covid-19,qualitative research,voluntary sector,public health,health inequalities,marginalised communities,minoritised communities

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content100

                Most referenced authors483