Designing an accessible and equitable conference and the evaluation of the barriers to research inclusion for rare disease communities
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/cid2024106Keywords:
Rare Diseases, Equality Diversity and Inclusion, Wellbeing, Diversity in Rare Disease Research, Inclusive Research, Quality of LifeAbstract
Introduction: the United Kingdom Rare Diseases Framework, published in 2021, addresses the lack of diversity in rare disease research, particularly in clinical trials, due to intersecting issues related to rare disease symptoms and health inequalities. The framework outlines the government's commitment to improving the lives of the 3,5 million people living with rare conditions in the United Kingdom.
Objective: the primary objective is to advance equality, diversity, and inclusion in research by developing innovative methods to engage with communities, establish trust, and enhance the participation and voices of underrepresented and underserved communities.
Methods: the conference was held in May 2023, bringing together voices with lived experiences from rare and diverse communities to meet and discuss with established researchers, policy influencers and advocates. The evaluation design was developed using the Program Logic Model and utilised a conference evaluation form on barriers to inclusion.
Results: the Rare Disease Community identifies disability as the primary obstacle to inclusion. Social Care and Public Health Communities and Clinical Research Communities identified a need for more cultural competency. The Diverse Community selected psychosocial issues, and the Academic Community identified funding as the most significant barrier.
Conclusions: the Community of Practice workshops showed the variety of lived experiences and potential barriers people confront for inclusion in research. Listening to individual viewpoints was crucial to creating or repairing community trust. The Academic Community felt that research funders and ethics review boards must adapt their institutional practices to include financial resources for outreach and participation in research design
References
1. Mitchell AEP, Galli F, Butterworth S. Editorial: Equality, diversity and inclusive research for diverse rare disease communities. Frontiers in Psychology 2023;14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1285774.
2. Clark LT, Watkins L, Piña IL, Elmer M, Akinboboye O, Gorham M, et al. Increasing Diversity in Clinical Trials: Overcoming Critical Barriers. Current Problems in Cardiology 2019;44:148–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2018.11.002
3. Gray DM, Nolan TS, Gregory J, Joseph JJ. Diversity in clinical trials: an opportunity and imperative for community engagement. The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology 2021;6:605–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2468-1253(21)00228-4
4. DHSC. The UK Rare Diseases Framework. GOVUK 2021. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-rare-diseases-framework/the-uk-rare-diseases-framework (accessed August 7, 2023).
5. Rare Disease UK. Illuminating the Rare Reality, 2020. https://www.raredisease.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2019/02/Illuminatingthe-rare-reality-2019.pdf (accessed August 19, 2023).
6. Person D, Garcia Y. Creating Inclusive Research Practices. New Directions for Institutional Research 2018;2018:121–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.20260
7. Nind M. Inclusive research and inclusive education: why connecting them makes sense for teachers’ and learners’ democratic development of education. Cambridge Journal of Education 2014;44:525–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764x.2014.936825.
8. Holt L, Jeffries J, Hall E, Power A. Geographies of co‐production: Learning from inclusive research approaches at the margins. Area 2019;51:390–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12532.
9. McKellar KA, Pitzul KB, Yi JY, Cole DC. Evaluating Communities of Practice and Knowledge Networks: A Systematic Scoping Review of Evaluation Frameworks. EcoHealth 2014;11:383–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-014-0958-3.
10. Lave J, Wenger E. Situated Learning 1991. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511815355.
11. McLaughlin JA, Jordan GB. Logic models: a tool for telling your programs performance story. Evaluation and Program Planning 1999;22:65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-7189(98)00042-1.
12. UK Government. The Equality Act, 2010. Legislation.gov.uk n.d. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2010/ukpga-20100015-en-1 (accessed 22 August 2023).
13. Scheffelaar A, Bos N, de Jong M, Triemstra M, van Dulmen S, Luijkx K. Lessons learned from participatory research to enhance client participation in long-term care research: a multiple case study. Research Involvement and Engagement 2020;6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-020-00187-5
14. Villagran MAL. Cultural Competence in Research. School of Information Student Research Journal 2022;12. https://doi.org/10.31979/2575-2499.120103
15. Gil EF, Bob S. Culturally competent research. Clinical Psychology Review 1999;19:45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-7358(98)00019-1
16. Bierer BE, White SA, Gelinas L, Strauss DH. Fair payment and just benefits to enhance diversity in clinical research. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science 2021;5. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2021.816
17. Gelinas L, Largent EA, Cohen IG, Kornetsky S, Bierer BE, Fernandez Lynch H. A Framework for Ethical Payment to Research Participants. New England Journal of Medicine 2018;378:766–71. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmsb1710591
18. Clark LT, Watkins L, Piña IL, Elmer M, Akinboboye O, Gorham M, et al. Increasing Diversity in Clinical Trials: Overcoming Critical Barriers. Current Problems in Cardiology 2019;44:148–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2018.11.002
19. Gray DM, Nolan TS, Gregory J, Joseph JJ. Diversity in clinical trials: an opportunity and imperative for community engagement. The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology 2021;6:605–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2468-1253(21)00228-4
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Andrew E. P. Mitchell, Sondra Butterworth (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
