How to tackle inequities in bereavement support for ethnically diverse communities: a national qualitative study using experience-based co-design.

IF 8.7 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Lucy E Selman, Jenny Birchall, Emily Fisher, Adejoke O Oluyase, Nikel-Shaniece Hector-Jack, Toslima Khatun, Rukia Saleem, Naureen Khan, Shirin Shahid, Riffat Mahmood, Gurpreet Grewal-Santini, Monika Afolabi, Candice Wang, Sarah Ng, Rashmi Kumar, Katherine Bristowe, Herbert Dunhill, Zoebia Islam, Jonathan Koffman, Gurch Randhawa, Emily Harrop, Catriona R Mayland, Sabrina Bajwah
{"title":"How to tackle inequities in bereavement support for ethnically diverse communities: a national qualitative study using experience-based co-design.","authors":"Lucy E Selman, Jenny Birchall, Emily Fisher, Adejoke O Oluyase, Nikel-Shaniece Hector-Jack, Toslima Khatun, Rukia Saleem, Naureen Khan, Shirin Shahid, Riffat Mahmood, Gurpreet Grewal-Santini, Monika Afolabi, Candice Wang, Sarah Ng, Rashmi Kumar, Katherine Bristowe, Herbert Dunhill, Zoebia Islam, Jonathan Koffman, Gurch Randhawa, Emily Harrop, Catriona R Mayland, Sabrina Bajwah","doi":"10.1186/s12916-026-05254-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>High-income countries globally are becoming increasingly diverse. People from ethnically diverse communities experience inequities in accessing bereavement support, but evidence to inform equitable provision remains limited. We aimed to determine how formal bereavement support services can better serve ethnically diverse communities by identifying barriers to and facilitators of equitable access, defining key components of culturally safe and appropriate bereavement care, and developing a logic model and recommendations for equitable bereavement support.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Multi-phase national qualitative study, drawing on experience-based co-design principles. We conducted interviews (n = 53) and focus groups (n = 9) with 121 bereaved people from 13 ethnically diverse backgrounds, interviews with 23 bereavement support providers across 12 services, four online co-design workshops with bereaved people and stakeholders (n = 53), and a hybrid workshop to refine recommendations (n = 29 stakeholders). Recruitment and data collection prioritised cultural safety and an asset-based approach. Directed thematic analysis was informed by Levesque et al.'s access to healthcare framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Barriers to equitable bereavement support arose across the access pathway but were concentrated mainly within bereavement support organisations and the wider bereavement support system. Racism and intersectionality were cross-cutting themes, influencing whether bereaved people could identify, trust, reach and engage with support. Key barriers included poor signposting and referral, long waiting lists, limited staff diversity, language barriers, weak organisational commitment to equity, precarious funding, and white-centred, individualised models of grief support. Participants identified culturally safe and equitable care as requiring anti-racist practice, sustained community partnership, provision of support in trusted settings and community languages, holistic and flexible provision, and greater investment in grassroots services designed and delivered by ethnically diverse communities. The logic model and recommendations identify system-wide actions needed to address barriers and support equitable access.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Inequitable access to bereavement support for ethnically diverse communities is rooted primarily in the design, organisation and cultural orientation of services and the wider bereavement support system. Improving equity will require sustained investment in community-led provision, accountability mechanisms, and genuine partnership with ethnically diverse communities. Findings from this robust multi-perspective study provide actionable recommendations to reform bereavement support across high- and middle-income settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":9188,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medicine","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13685337/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-026-05254-4","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: High-income countries globally are becoming increasingly diverse. People from ethnically diverse communities experience inequities in accessing bereavement support, but evidence to inform equitable provision remains limited. We aimed to determine how formal bereavement support services can better serve ethnically diverse communities by identifying barriers to and facilitators of equitable access, defining key components of culturally safe and appropriate bereavement care, and developing a logic model and recommendations for equitable bereavement support.

Methods: Multi-phase national qualitative study, drawing on experience-based co-design principles. We conducted interviews (n = 53) and focus groups (n = 9) with 121 bereaved people from 13 ethnically diverse backgrounds, interviews with 23 bereavement support providers across 12 services, four online co-design workshops with bereaved people and stakeholders (n = 53), and a hybrid workshop to refine recommendations (n = 29 stakeholders). Recruitment and data collection prioritised cultural safety and an asset-based approach. Directed thematic analysis was informed by Levesque et al.'s access to healthcare framework.

Results: Barriers to equitable bereavement support arose across the access pathway but were concentrated mainly within bereavement support organisations and the wider bereavement support system. Racism and intersectionality were cross-cutting themes, influencing whether bereaved people could identify, trust, reach and engage with support. Key barriers included poor signposting and referral, long waiting lists, limited staff diversity, language barriers, weak organisational commitment to equity, precarious funding, and white-centred, individualised models of grief support. Participants identified culturally safe and equitable care as requiring anti-racist practice, sustained community partnership, provision of support in trusted settings and community languages, holistic and flexible provision, and greater investment in grassroots services designed and delivered by ethnically diverse communities. The logic model and recommendations identify system-wide actions needed to address barriers and support equitable access.

Conclusions: Inequitable access to bereavement support for ethnically diverse communities is rooted primarily in the design, organisation and cultural orientation of services and the wider bereavement support system. Improving equity will require sustained investment in community-led provision, accountability mechanisms, and genuine partnership with ethnically diverse communities. Findings from this robust multi-perspective study provide actionable recommendations to reform bereavement support across high- and middle-income settings.

如何解决种族多样化社区丧亲支持方面的不平等:一项使用基于经验的共同设计的全国性定性研究。
背景:全球高收入国家正变得越来越多样化。来自多种族社区的人在获得丧亲支持方面经历了不平等,但公平提供的证据仍然有限。我们的目的是确定正式的丧亲支持服务如何更好地为不同种族的社区服务,通过确定公平获取的障碍和促进因素,定义文化安全和适当的丧亲护理的关键组成部分,并制定公平丧亲支持的逻辑模型和建议。方法:采用基于经验的协同设计原则,进行多阶段定性研究。我们对来自13个不同种族背景的121名丧亲人士进行了访谈(n = 53)和焦点小组访谈(n = 9),对来自12种服务的23名丧亲支持提供者进行了访谈,与丧亲人士和利益相关者进行了四次在线共同设计研讨会(n = 53),并进行了一次混合研讨会以完善建议(n = 29利益相关者)。招聘和数据收集优先考虑文化安全和基于资产的方法。Levesque等人的获得医疗保健框架为定向专题分析提供了信息。结果:公平的丧亲支持障碍出现在整个获取途径,但主要集中在丧亲支持组织和更广泛的丧亲支持系统。种族主义和交叉性是交叉的主题,影响着失去亲人的人是否能够识别、信任、接触和参与支持。主要障碍包括糟糕的路标和转诊,漫长的等待名单,有限的员工多样性,语言障碍,组织对公平的承诺薄弱,资金不稳定,以及以白人为中心的个性化悲伤支持模式。与会者认为,文化上安全和公平的护理需要反种族主义的做法、持续的社区伙伴关系、在可信任的环境和社区语言中提供支持、全面和灵活的提供,以及对由多种族社区设计和提供的基层服务进行更多投资。逻辑模型和建议确定了解决障碍和支持公平获取所需的全系统行动。结论:多种族社区获得丧亲支持的不公平主要源于服务的设计、组织和文化取向,以及更广泛的丧亲支持系统。改善公平将需要持续投资于社区主导的供应、问责机制,以及与多种族社区建立真正的伙伴关系。这项强有力的多视角研究的结果为在高收入和中等收入环境中改革丧亲支持提供了可行的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medicine
BMC Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
1.10%
发文量
435
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medicine is an open access, transparent peer-reviewed general medical journal. It is the flagship journal of the BMC series and publishes outstanding and influential research in various areas including clinical practice, translational medicine, medical and health advances, public health, global health, policy, and general topics of interest to the biomedical and sociomedical professional communities. In addition to research articles, the journal also publishes stimulating debates, reviews, unique forum articles, and concise tutorials. All articles published in BMC Medicine are included in various databases such as Biological Abstracts, BIOSIS, CAS, Citebase, Current contents, DOAJ, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Science Citation Index Expanded, OAIster, SCImago, Scopus, SOCOLAR, and Zetoc.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书