Background: Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities suffer from disproportionately poorer health than the general population. This issue has been recently exemplified by the large numbers of infection rates and deaths caused by covid-19 in BAME populations. Future research has the potential to improve health outcomes for these groups. High quality research priority setting is crucial to effectively consider the needs of the most vulnerable groups of the population. Objective: The purpose of this systematic review is to identify existing research priority studies conducted for BAME health and to determine the extent to which they followed good practice principles for research priority setting. Method: Included studies were identified by searching Medline, Cinnahl, PsychINFO, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, as well as searches in grey literature. Search terms included “research priority setting”, “research prioritisation”, “research agenda”, “Black and minority ethnic”, “ethnic group”. Studies were included if they identified or elicited research priorities for BAME health and if they outlined a process of conducting a research prioritisation exercise. A checklist of Nine Common Themes of Good Practice in research priority setting was used as a methodological framework to evaluate the research priority processes of each study. Results: Out of 1514 citations initially obtained, 17 studies were included in the final synthesis. Topic areas for their research prioritisation exercise included suicide prevention, knee surgery, mental health, preterm birth, and child obesity. Public and patient involvement was included in eleven studies. Methods of research prioritisation included workshops, Delphi techniques, surveys, focus groups and interviews. The quality of empirical evidence was diverse. None of the exercises followed all good practice principles as outlined in the checklist. Areas that were lacking in particular were: the lack of a comprehensive approach to guide the process; limited use of criteria to guide discussion around priorities; unequal or no representation from ethnic minorities, and poor evaluation of their own processes. Conclusions: Research priority setting practices were found to mostly not follow good practice guidelines which aim to ensure rigour in priority setting activities and support the inclusion of BAME communities in establishing the research agenda. Research is unlikely to deliver useful findings that can support relevant research and positive change for BAME communities unless they fulfil areas of good practice such as inclusivity of key stakeholders’ input, planning for implementation of identified priorities, criteria for deciding on priorities, and evaluation of their processes in research priority setting.

Restrictions implemented by the UK Government during the COVID-19 pandemic have served to worsen mental health outcomes, particularly amongst younger adults, women, those living with chronic health conditions, and parents of young children. Studies looking at the impact for ethnic minorities have reported inconsistent findings. This paper describes the mental health experiences of mothers from a large and highly ethnically diverse population during the pandemic, using secondary analysis of existing data from three COVID-19 research studies completed in Bradford and London (Tower Hamlets and Newham). A total of 2807 mothers participated in this study with 44% White British, 23% Asian/Asian British Pakistani, 8% Other White and 7% Asian/Asian British Bangladeshi backgrounds. We found that 28% of mothers experienced clinically important depressive symptoms and 21% anxiety symptoms during the pandemic. In unadjusted analyses, mothers from White Other, and Asian/Asian British Bangladeshi backgrounds had higher odds of experiencing symptoms, whilst mothers from Asian/Asian British Indian backgrounds were the least likely to experience symptoms. Once loneliness, social support and financial insecurity were controlled for, there were no statistically significant differences in depression and anxiety by ethnicity. Mental health problems experienced during the pandemic may have longer term consequences for public health. Policy and decision makers must have an understanding of the high risk of financial insecurity, loneliness and a lack of social support on mother’s mental health, and also recognise that some ethnic groups are far more likely to experience these issues and are, therefore, more vulnerable to poor mental health as a consequence.

Introduction: Living in an area with high levels of child poverty predisposes children to poorer mental and physical health. ActEarly is a 5-year research programme that comprises a large number of interventions (>20) with citizen science and co-production embedded. It aims to improve the health and well-being of children and families living in two areas of the UK with high levels of deprivation; Bradford in West Yorkshire, and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. This protocol outlines the meta-evaluation (an evaluation of evaluations) of the ActEarly programme from a systems perspective, where individual interventions are viewed as events in the wider policy system across the two geographical areas. It includes investigating the programme’s impact on early life health and well-being outcomes, interdisciplinary prevention research collaboration and capacity building, and local and national decision making. Methods: The ActEarly meta-evaluation will follow and adapt the five iterative stages of the ‘Evaluation of Programmes in Complex Adaptive Systems’ (ENCOMPASS) framework for evaluation of public health programmes in complex adaptive systems. Theory-based and mixed-methods approaches will be used to investigate the fidelity of the ActEarly research programme, and whether, why and how ActEarly contributes to changes in the policy system, and whether alternative explanations can be ruled out. Ripple effects and systems mapping will be used to explore the relationships between interventions and their outcomes, and the degree to which the ActEarly programme encouraged interdisciplinary and prevention research collaboration as intended. A computer simulation model (“LifeSim”) will also be used to evaluate the scale of the potential long-term benefits of cross-sectoral action to tackle the financial, educational and health disadvantages faced by children in Bradford and Tower Hamlets. Together, these approaches will be used to evaluate ActEarly’s dynamic programme outputs at different system levels and measure the programme’s system changes on early life health and well-being. Discussion: This meta-evaluation protocol presents our plans for using and adapting the ENCOMPASS framework to evaluate the system-wide impact of the early life health and well-being programme, ActEarly. Due to the collaborative and non-linear nature of the work, we reserve the option to change and query some of our evaluation choices based on the feedback we receive from stakeholders to ensure that our evaluation remains relevant and fit for purpose.

Aim: Obesity research priority setting, if conducted to a high standard, can help promote policy-relevant and efficient research. Therefore, there is a need to identify existing research priority setting studies conducted in the topic area of obesity and to determine the extent to which they followed good practice principles for research priority setting. Method: Studies examining research priority setting in obesity were identified through searching the MEDLINE, PBSC, CINAHL, PsycINFO databases and the grey literature. The nine common themes of good practice in research priority setting were used as a methodological framework to evaluate the processes of the included studies. These were context, use of a comprehensive approach, inclusiveness, information gathering, planning for implementation, criteria, methods for deciding on priorities, evaluation and transparency. Results: Thirteen articles reporting research prioritisation exercises conducted in different areas of obesity research were included. All studies reported engaging with various stakeholders such as policy makers, researchers and healthcare professionals. Public involvement was included in six studies. Methods of research prioritisation commonly included both Delphi and nominal group techniques and surveys. None of the 13 studies fulfilled all nine of the good practice criteria for research priority setting, with the most common limitations including not using a comprehensive approach and lack of inclusivity and evaluating on their processes. Conclusion: There is a need for research priority setting studies in obesity to involve the public and to evaluate their exercises to ensure they are of high quality.

Introduction: British South Asians have a higher prevalence of overweight and obesity than the wider population. Bradford (UK), with its high Pakistani presence and levels of economic deprivation, has exceptionally high instances, especially in deprived areas where many Pakistanis reside. British Pakistani women in Bradford are more likely to be overweight and obese. There is uncertainty on how these women can be aided to manage their weight. Therefore, the objective of this study was to explore the obesity concerns of Pakistani women living in deprived inner‐city areas of Bradford.Methods: Three focus groups interviews were carried out with 23 Pakistani women living in deprived areas of Bradford. Data were analysed thematically.Results: This exploratory study identified a wide range of concerns that women had around managing their weight. Participants disclosed distrust in information given around medication, conflicting dietary information and reported low levels of trust in women‐only organized physical activities. Cultural barriers were identified, which included the gender role of the woman, the lack of culturally appropriate dietary advice, cultural misunderstandings of what constitutes a healthy diet and healthy weight, the lack of culturally suitable exercise facilities and conforming to family and community expectations. Other concerns were language barriers around a lack of understanding, the inability to read Urdu and reliance on others to translate information.Conclusion: These findings have implications for researchers, local authorities, policy makers and others with an interest in reducing the rates of obesity in this population. Recommendations include training health practitioners to be culturally aware of the diet and eating practices of this community, exploring different ways to support socially isolated women to be more physically active at home, addressing physical activity and diet misconceptions and designing obesity management information materials appropriate for a range of literacy levels.Patient or Public Contribution: Public contributors were involved in the development of the interview guide and design of the research. A pilot focus group with participants not included in the present paper was used to help test and refine the focus group questions. Interview transcripts were member checked by participants, and participants assisted with data analysis.

Background: Addressing the upstream social determinants of health (e.g. built environment, education) can reduce the burden of non-communicable diseases. To do so effectively often requires system-wide collaboration. However, collaborating across multiple sectors, organizations and disciplines within a complex system can be challenging. ActEarly was a public health research consortium that aimed to improve child health by building an interdisciplinary, cross-city partnership to develop and/or evaluate upstream interventions, increase research capacity and improve collaboration between researchers, local authorities and communities. This paper explores ActEarly’s experiences of navigating complexity to identify mechanisms that supported its implementation and proposes recommendations for future intersectoral and interdisciplinary population health research collaborations. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal qualitative study of ActEarly, integrating findings from inductive documentary analysis of internal documents (mainly meetings minutes and reports) (n = 114) and interviews (n = 70) with 45 consortium members at three different timepoints (2018, 2021, 2023). Participants worked across different organizations, cities, roles and levels of seniority in the consortium. Findings: Clarity, Unity, Flexibility and Feasibility were seen as the key mechanisms required to support ActEarly’s implementation. Clear aims, governance structures and communication were necessary to manage the uncertainty of the complex system. A unified approach, characterized by strong relationships, having a shared vision and communal access to resources supported effective collaboration. Flexibility was required to adjust to different ways of working, respond to wider system events and manage the consortium. Establishing feasible aims that responded to the limitations of the system, the available resources and research infrastructure was required for teams to deliver the work. Conclusions: Implementing multi-faceted programmes in a complex system can be challenging. We recommend that future whole-systems consortia seeking to improve population health build Clarity, Unity, Flexibility and Feasibility into their programmes, noting the complex interrelationships between these factors. Iterative reflections from all parties should support delivery amidst the uncertainty that comes with running a population health research collaboration, and strong leadership and governance should play a key role in ensuring that these are built into foundations the programme.