Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Ensuring racial inclusion in research: the role of research ethics committees and patient and public involvement and engagement
  1. Alisen Dube,
  2. Yetunde Ataiyero,
  3. Sarahjane Jones
  1. Centre for Health Innovation, Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, UK
  1. Correspondence to Miss Alisen Dube; alisen.dube{at}staffs.ac.uk

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Introduction

Although the UK is a multicultural society, racially minoritised populations are often under-represented in healthcare research owing to the significant barriers to participation they experience.1 Under-representation of racially minoritised groups in research impacts the quality of evidence and applicability of findings to these groups. This, in part, explains why these communities are more likely to report poorer health and poorer experiences of using healthcare services than their White counterparts,2 given that their cultural and spiritual preferences are often ignored.3 This commentary will explore some of the persistent multifaceted barriers and the role of research ethics committees (RECs) in enabling inclusive healthcare research among racially minoritised communities, given their key responsibility in building public confidence, ensuring ethical conduct and safeguarding research participants. In addition, patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) can complement the roles of RECs in embracing diversity in healthcare research, ultimately contributing to improved patient outcomes.

Discussion

There is a climate of mistrust and reluctance in research participation among racially minoritised communities. This is likely a …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant associated with this article from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.