Research and analysis

Appendix C: Ethnic minority experiences of COVID-19

Published 3 December 2021

This was published under the 2019 to 2022 Johnson Conservative government

Introduction

Public Health England’s Beyond the Data report, summarised engagement with external stakeholders, which sought to understand the impact of the pandemic on ethnic minority groups. It suggested that issues of stigma, racism and fear needed to be addressed.

Concerned about how the pandemic was impacting the everyday lives of people from ethnic minorities, the RDU commissioned an in-depth research project from Policy Lab. RDU wanted to know more about how individuals responded and adapted to the pandemic socially, financially, in their homes and workplaces. This research would provide a nuanced understanding of the motivations, interpretation and experience of the differential impact of COVID-19 on participants. 12 people from a variety of backgrounds were interviewed and provided films of their lives during August and September 2020, before the start of the vaccination deployment. The findings from the research were included in the body of evidence that informed subsequent policy development and communications.

These sections set out Policy Lab’s work and detail the research insights, as well as explaining the value, limitations and methodology of the research approach they adopted.

Aims of the research

There were 2 main aims for the Policy Lab study. The first was to gather deep insights about the impact of COVID-19 on the everyday lives and experiences of people from ethnic minority groups.

To build on the findings from PHE, Policy Lab was asked to consider the following themes when gathering insights:

• stigma, racism and discrimination – for example in healthcare, social care and frontline services
• communications around COVID-19 – for example from government, the local community, and faith groups
• everyday experiences –for example how housing, finance, education and employment were affected
• future impacts of COVID-19 – for example how the pandemic has impacted people’s future finances, social lives and political perspectives

The second aim was to make sure these insights would be useful for government departments, including PHE, to support the development and improvement of the government’s COVID-19 response. Despite the small number of participants, including these findings in the wider evidence base could provide departments with an understanding of people’s experiences and enable them to consider the wide-ranging risks from COVID-19 that have been identified within ethnic minority groups from a new perspective, helping to mitigate and address them more holistically.

Context of the research

It is important to place this research appropriately during the pandemic, as the situation across the country has altered rapidly and erratically over the 18 months. The timing of the research will have a bearing on the optimism and knowledge of the participants, and thus potentially on their reflections of the previous months and interpretations of their contemporary situation.

This research took place during September and October 2020. During August, many restrictions had been lifted and in September children had returned to school. However, by the end of September, the ‘rule of six’ had been introduced with further restrictions imminent, the 3-tier system of local lockdowns was introduced in mid-October and a 4-week national lockdown began on 5 November. While there was discussion of a potential vaccine by the Health Secretary in early September, it wasn’t until early December that the first vaccine was approved. A fourth, stricter, lockdown tier came into force in London and the South East on 21 December.

If this research was repeated, it is likely that perspectives will have changed again to reflect the optimism from the vaccination roll-out as well as the concern about the Delta variant.

Methodology

This exploratory study used a qualitative film research approach to provide insights about individuals’ complex social realities, experiences and perspectives of the COVID-19 pandemic. This ethnographic exploration involves a rigorous and systematic process for data collection, analysis and presentation of insights. Experienced social researchers conducted participant-led interviews and interacted with participants on WhatsApp to engage with participants remotely within their own environment. An experienced video ethnographer was recruited to edit the raw research film footage into films around the emerging themes.

There were 12 participants in total – 8 participants were recruited via a specialised research agency, and 4 participants via not-for-profit organisations to ensure the involvement of those who may be experiencing digital and social exclusion. Using the findings from the PHE reports to inform participant diversity, the 12 participants included different ages, sexes, sexualities, households, religions, geographies and socioeconomic statuses (though there were some limitations to the sample).

The research comprised 3 key activities over the course of 6 weeks, with weekly activities which were responsive to the participant’s circumstances and what they shared with their researcher:

• initial interview with researcher (90 minutes, Week 1)
• 5 visual weekly activities (in participants own time, Weeks 2-6)
• wrap up interview (30 to 45 minutes, Week 6)

Strengths and limitations

The strengths of this research are that it:

• is a rigorous form of social research that can often reveal things that quantitative work cannot, such as why and how patterns in statistical data may have emerged
• involves engaging with individuals in their own environments, providing a different perspective from how participants might recall their behaviour in interviews
• provides focused and nuanced insights into the social realities, experiences and perspectives of a group of people, including how they experience and respond to government policy

These should be set against some limitations, including that:

• the small sample size means findings cannot be generalised across populations as participants can only speak of their own lives and experiences
• some important populations were not directly included in this group of participants, particularly people aged over 70 and those living in care homes
• as with all qualitative research data collection, participants may be influenced by the presence of, and relationship with, social researchers, when taking part in research
• retrospective studies, where participants are asked to describe events in the past can be affected by recall bias (misremembering), social desirability bias (claim to have complied with guidelines in order to not look like they are breaking the rules) and acquiescence bias (inclined to provide answers that sounded more positive)
• as with any research, participants’ responses are trusted to be that person’s views and experiences. Information provided by respondents is not independently verified – in addition, with large sample quantitative studies, it is possible to identify outliers which, though truthful, may distort the general picture, and this is not possible with small sample studies

The following section outlines the main themes that emerged from the 6 weeks of research with the participants.

Findings

Over the course of the 6 weeks of interaction between the social researchers and the participants, a significant amount of data was generated. This included over 70 hours of video material and information gathered through initial and wrap up interviews with participants. The curation of the video material and thematic analysis of the interviews led to the emergence of 6 main themes:

• communication and compliance
• identity
• home, place and space
• risk and perception of risk
• disruption and adaptation
• histories and futures

These themes clearly overlapped with the findings from the PHE stakeholder engagement and as the focus of the research was co-directed by the participants themselves, this overlap indicates that the experiences of our 12 participants were not uncommon.

1. Communication and compliance

Key insights

Trust in the sources of information was important to participants’ acceptance of the message conveyed.

Navigating the advice and complying with it in everyday situations was challenging for participants when it conflicted with health or financial necessities.

Some participants felt stigmatised as transmitters of COVID-19 due to photographs and articles within the media that implied blame on ethnic minority groups.

Participants sifted and navigated COVID-19 information based on trust

Most participants reported receiving information about COVID-19 from official sources, such as government announcements or gov.uk. They also felt that they were sufficiently aware of the guidelines. However, they made continual assessments of the accuracy and credibility of the guidelines based on their levels of trust. These levels of trust varied on a range of factors that included familiarity with the source and when information was corroborated through trusted relationships.

I’m on WhatsApp groups, family groups so I get updates on there… obviously I trust the information on them probably more than some of the news outlets.

(Participant A)

Nearly all participants encountered misinformation. In order to limit the vast amount of information that was emerging from official and unofficial sources, many participants self-imposed limits to reduce their exposure to misinformation, to limit their fear of the pandemic and to protect their wellbeing.

I wouldn’t criticise the government for not giving out enough information…

(Participant J)

Inequality in the ability to comply with pandemic regulations

Despite a high awareness of COVID-19 rules, some participants reflected on the difficulty of applying the advice to everyday situations.

You try to keep your distance from people but when you go to a supermarket and you’re walking around it’s impossible to keep your distance…

(Participant G).

Compliance was challenging as some participants felt they did not always have the ability or tools to adapt to changing regulations.

In addition, the responses of many participants about lockdown regulations suggested that they were unclear about the reason why certain areas were selected for different lockdown measures. Due to this, some developed their own ideas about why decisions were being made, which particularly related to the ethnic diversity, geographical and class differences in these areas.

Have you noticed it’s all the poor areas they have started to do this to…it’s hitting all the poor, the northerners.

(Participant J)

Some participants felt that there was a disconnection between those setting new protective measures and the public because of a lack of understanding and recognition of how the measures would affect the daily life of some people.

Perceived tensions in government regulations damaged trust and compliance

The need to introduce regulations to control the spread of COVID-19 affected the ability of different communities to observe religious and cultural festivals in the usual way. People were under ‘stay-at-home’ rules during Easter, and events such as Leeds and Notting Hill carnivals were cancelled. However, Participant D amongst others, felt that some last minute announcements, such as the restriction on household mixing in the North West the day before Eid celebrations, were insensitive with the impact on the large Muslim population in the area overlooked.

Overall it’s difficult to follow the guidelines and trust what they say… especially for me when the updates came out the day before Eid.

(Participant D)

Some participants found the regulations and their enforcement to be inconsistent and said this caused confusion and undermined trust, while prominent examples of non-compliant behaviour of some celebrities caused mistrust too.

Media narratives perpetuating blame on certain communities

The messaging about the pandemic from the media on occasion was felt by participants to reinforce stigma and worsen social divisions. Such messages through articles and photographs were felt to blame and single out certain ethnic minorities for being at higher risk of infection and transmission of COVID-19. As such, participants reflected on how this has exacerbated existing stigmas and created new ones, for example, ethnic minority groups being responsible for the spread of the virus.

I think a lot of people from the settled community thinks we’re a lot more contagious and people seem to be keeping back from us.

(Participant G)

2. Identity

Key insights

Identities are often over-simplified.

Labelling ethnic minority groups as vulnerable creates stigma and fear.

Experiences of racism were exacerbated by the pandemic.

Participants see their own identities as fluid and complex

Participants spoke about identity in various ways including their racial or ethnic identity. This included their birthplace, childhood, migration status, current residence, sexual orientation, gender, class status, age, disability and employment. In addition, most participants referred to experiences of racism and exclusion from wider society. Some participants also referred to experiences of migration and trauma when discussing their identity, as each of these experiences helped to shape and develop that person’s sense of self. Even so, identifying with an ethnic group can bring positive experiences of belonging as well as negative experiences of exclusion.

My mom is Black African, my dad is Greek. I born in Congo, Belgium, Burundi. I grow in Athens. I have Greek education. I am a Yorkshire boy… Yorkshire is the number 8 language I try to speak.

(Participant F)

I feel like I am British now. In a way, I feel like I’m connected to London. I’ve connected to this area and I feel this is my home.

(Participant I)

It is also important to recognise that participants’ sense of identity shifted throughout their everyday lives, with aspects becoming more or less important in different moments or interactions. As such, the label BAME (which is an acronym for black, Asian and minority ethnic), used often in the media and in early government messaging, oversimplified their experiences and created the impression of a homogeneous group that did not reflect participants’ nuanced and fluid identities.

A similar finding was made by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, which in March 2021 recommended that aggregated and unhelpful terms such as BAME, should stop being used.

Using BAME framing is unhelpful to understanding disparities between ethnic minority group

The main effect of using BAME as an amalgamated term was to exacerbate and amplify participants’ feelings of risk and stigma in relation to COVID-19. The research found that being informed about “BAME vulnerability” through the media pushed participants to consider themselves only through the lens of their minority identity, making them fearful about their biological vulnerability to COVID-19.

You see it on the TV, that those who are from ethnic minorities are those who tend to die… I feel that I have come out of prison and within the next three years I will catch Corona and die. It’s a real fear for me.

(Participant K)

However, most participants wondered whether they were actually more at risk – they felt that the reasons why people from ethnic minority groups were more vulnerable than white people were unclear, and that criteria other than ethnicity, such as social and economic circumstances, should be considered.

Black people are more inclined to get Covid for whatever reason that might be. It might be because of austerity.

(Participant L)

Further to this, some participants used their own reported historical experiences of exclusion, poverty and discrimination to explain their perception of vulnerability.

Experiences of racism were exacerbated by the pandemic

The research also found that the pandemic and particularly the use of generalised statements in media reporting of the pandemic, had increased participants’ feelings of being stigmatised and discriminated against. Some participants suggested that ethnic minority groups were being blamed for COVID-19 transmission.

We had a few experiences where there was like British White people and they see us and they are physically – especially when we’re going for walks, as well – they’ll literally stand on the edge of the path. It’s almost like they’re going to fall off.

(Participant D)

It should be noted that that participants discussed discrimination associated with the pandemic occurring between and within ethnic minority and religious groups as well as between white and ethnic minority groups. For example, Participant C spoke of witnessing people from the Chinese ethnic group being avoided at university because COVID-19 was first identified in China.

Wider social and cultural events also affected participants’ sense of identity. Though not directly related to the pandemic, for 3 of the 12 participants, the protests last summer was perceived as an important moment for speaking out against racism, discrimination and historical exclusion.

3. Home, place and space

Key insights

Participants experienced differences in access to space, security and comfort.

Availability of space, inside or outside the home reportedly impacted participants’ wellbeing, compliance with guidelines and risk mitigation.

Participants experience a diversity of home domains

Home conditions were the primary domain through which participants experienced the pandemic. The ‘home’ included a diverse range of kinship arrangements, physical locations, and for some participants, shifting arrangements over time.

Being retired, Participant L enjoyed life at home. He was able to make a space in the shed for his disabled son, to give him a space to relax in. He also took comfort in giving time to the garden and having outdoor space.

But this experience was not available to all participants: Participant J unexpectedly had to share her small flat in London with her adult daughter. She struggled with the limited physical space and the uncertainty about how long she would have to live there.

Another participant, Participant K, left prison with £45 in his pocket just before lockdown. Initially he lived in an approved hostel, but was deeply unhappy there. He then shifted between his mother’s overcrowded house, his partner’s home, and a tent.

At my mum’s house, I have three brothers, a sister and two nephews that live in the house… that’s 8 of us in a 3 bedroom house. When I stay I’m sleeping on the floor.

(Participant K)

Towards the end of the research, his housing officer found him a new home. The strong formal support network including his support officer, his GP and multi-agency police protection around Participant K contributed to him moving to his own home during the pandemic.

The availability of space directed participants’ adaptations

The type of housing conditions and sense of home affected participants’ wellbeing and ability to cope with the consequences of the pandemic and shaped their experiences. Participants’ homes and neighbourhoods were simultaneously sources of anxiety, and precarity as well as sites of refuge and comfort. For anyone unable to maintain a safe, secure and hygienic home for whatever reason, the effects of the pandemic were understandably intensified.

Participant G explained how access to water was a challenge for Romany gypsies and other travelling populations. The closure of buildings with public facilities, such as leisure centres, compounded this and added to their challenges.

Participant A simultaneously enjoyed the comfort of her new home, but felt alienated from her immediate neighbours. Her new neighbourhood was further from her family and friends, but her living conditions improved because she was no longer in a damp flat. She enjoyed working from home, as it relieved the pressure of having to fit in with her colleagues in the workplace but she also missed regular adult company.

I love my little house… It really feels good to say that I actually love being at home. As much as I still struggle with my mental [health]… I do get lonely sometimes, but I do enjoy being at home now.

(Participant A)

Working from home was an adaptation that Participant D was also able to establish for the first time. This created greater flexibility for his family, which allowed him to support childcare responsibilities and daily routines.

4. Risk and perception of risk

Key insights

Multiple factors influenced participants’ perception of risks, including impacts of religious and ideological beliefs, exposure to media and existing individual experiences of COVID-19. As such, management strategies were based on each individual’s assessment and interpretation of cumulative perceived risks.

Participants felt that associating higher risk with ethnic minorities increased existing stigma, particularly when generalised risk statements were made by the media on this group’s risk without providing the appropriate rationale behind the statement.

Individuals perception of risk may reflect personal beliefs, media and personal experiences

Participants’ perceptions of risk were not fixed, such that the same participants could simultaneously feel that social restrictions were excessive, while perceiving the disease as very real and frightening. One participant stated that he believed in herd immunity for most people, but vulnerable people should still shield. A few participants were confused about their own risk and whether they should trust government communication while others who experienced confusion deliberated whether or not they ‘believed’ in COVID-19 at all. This impacted what they defined as risky and how they managed it, for example, Participant K’s assessment of risk was made in relation to close family’s beliefs.

I believe in Corona, my partner isn’t too sure if she believes in it, my sister is the same, I’m not too sure but I still worry about it and am taking the precautions.

(Participant K)

Associating ethnic minority vulnerability to COVID-19 has exacerbated stigma

Participants expressed concern about being perceived as risk-givers and related this to existing stigmas about their ethnic group. Perceptions of risks were also shaped by media communications, particularly those that singled out ethnic minorities as suffering increased COVID-19 transmission.

You see it on the TV, that those who are from ethnic minorities are those who tend to die.

(Participant K)

Others felt that there were graver health risks than COVID-19 to their ethnic group that received little interest or attention, such as Lupus.

Assessment and prioritisation of different risks

All participants’ risk-management strategies were developed in response to a complex set of cumulative perceived risks. Some participants felt that there was added awareness that their ethnic identity placed them at higher risk. Lack of access to technology for some had an impact on how risk of COVID-19 was managed. For example, Participant C’s grandparents relied on him and his family to provide and interpret information regarding the pandemic. Some participants perceived that the risk of COVID-19 had to be balanced with everyday necessities such as financial, health, wellbeing and caring responsibilities. One participant spoke of being caught between her financial obligations and caring for her family.

I can be around complete strangers at work, who are not social distancing… I’m putting myself at risk just to make money, but I can’t see my grandma who is really struggling.

(Participant A)

Difference between wider narratives of risks and individual perceived risk

Some participants considered that they were overly saturated with messages of risk, with cumulative announcements regarding the ongoing pandemic, Brexit and other potential threats producing feelings of fear and frustration. Other participants believed that the government focused on morbidity and hospitalisation risks from COVID-19 but ignored others, such as the effects of lockdown on population mental health.

We have the highest rates of mental health and suicide in Europe, probably, anyway, before lockdown. And I believe it’s going to skyrocket, certainly.

(Participant D)

5. Disruption and adaptation

Key insights

Ability to adjust is influenced by social and economic resources available, leading to a varied sense of control amongst participants.

Perceived lack of formal mental health support has led to individual strategies for self-care.

Networks and relationships have intensified with kinship groups often becoming smaller and more resilient through mutual care giving bonds.

Ability to adapt and adjust is largely dictated by resources available

Across the 12 participants there was a range of access to financial resources. At one end, Participant D was able to work from home and continue almost as normal, whereas Participant J was forced into part-time time work because of the COVID-19 restrictions. With help, Participant G’s family was able to access grants for the self-employed, which after having no work for 3 weeks “helped a great deal”. The research found that participants’ ability to adapt and adjust, along with their sense of hope and pragmatism, was largely influenced by the resources available.

I don’t know how they can say you have to live off this and it has to pay your bills, your gas, your food. I don’t know how people survive.

(Participant A)

Participants discussed access not only to financial resources but also social, familial and environmental resources, as support networks and kinship groups were disrupted by social restrictions necessitated by the pandemic. A few participants cited the impact on other family members as a factor that reduced the resources available for mutual support. For example, one participant was concerned about her sister being made redundant, while another had to support his mother through a deteriorating domestic situation.

The availability of resources also impacted upon participants’ self-perceptions. Furthermore, ongoing uncertainty was also cited by participants as impeding their ability to control their own lives.

I’m going to be a prisoner in my house and I didn’t know how long it was going to take.

(Participant I)

Participants also felt that some announcements of pandemic regulations were at the last minute, and this compounded their perception of a lack of control.

A perceived lack of mental health support meant people became self-reliant

As a result of the added pressures from the pandemic, most participants reported an adverse impact on their mental health. Participants with pre-existing health conditions such as depression and anxiety felt that their conditions worsened. Although participants did report accessing a variety of support services, including from medical and social services, some did not feel that the support they were offered was effective in helping them manage the challenges they were facing.

I’m not really happy with the doctor I spoke to. I don’t think she took what I was saying seriously. I think she was thinking … everyone is going through the same thing.

(Participant A)

Some participants created their own strategies for self-care. One participant turned to alternative therapies to reduce anxiety and stress. Another participant felt fortunate that there was a park nearby where he could walk, helping to relieve and reduce panic attacks.

Reliance on self-care rather than formal treatment for mental health was sometimes motivated by the perception that service providers were overstretched.

The helpline from the government - I don’t bother with it. It takes so long to get through to somebody that I would rather do it myself.

(Participant J)

Relationships and care giving has been intensified

Overall, the pandemic led to the intensification of individuals’ support networks. Participants highlighted how they adapted to the situation by depending on particular relationships that they could access. While some intensifying of relationships had been negative, for example the breakdown of relationships due to the strain of close proximity or extra caring responsibilities, many were positive, through the re-enforcing of existing bonds or support from unexpected networks.

Participant H and her sister made a ‘bubble’ with their neighbour, leading to reciprocal support and companionship.

We’re very very good friends. All through this bubble. This house just here…I’ve just run round with [her neighbour’s] tea, the curry, and she’s just made these buns, look at the lemon curd… Ain’t she done a good job.

(Participant H)

Participant K had recently been released from prison. He described how proud his probation officer was of him, and the importance of his partner in getting him through this difficult time. Participant D spoke of how his relationship with his manager has deepened because of the extra support offered to him during the pandemic.

6. Histories and futures

Key insights

People’s insights, interpretations and outlook of the pandemic were influenced by personal cultural histories and experiences.

Participants’ existing perceptions of their place in society and their understanding of racism have been heightened by COVID-19.

Re-evaluation of the “now” in the era of COVID-19 and different ideas of the new normal has led to new expectations of what the future looks like.

Participants histories and experiences ground their perspective

Past experiences and trust in public services and institutions shaped how the participants engaged or did not engage with public health messages, with some believing there were links to wider conspiracy theories. For example, Participant K grew up in the care system as a child and this experience may have informed his distrust of government rules and responses.

This whole track and trace is just the start of it… it’s a way for the government to monitor your every movement.

(Participant K).

In addition, Participant C believed that a lot of people from his ethnic group were more likely to have the perspective that “they know more than the government,” which would affect the way they engage with official messages. He gave the example of his grandparents who considered the threat from COVID-19 to be exaggerated.

Social perceptions and consciousness of racism recast in the context of COVID-19

The pandemic led to greater risk of mortality amongst ethnic minorities largely due to a range of geographical and socioeconomic factors sometimes more prevalent in, but not unique to, their ethnic group. While the majority did not think about race or ethnicity in their everyday life, some did express feelings that the general narrative and public discourse about the links between ethnicity and COVID-19 left them feeling singled out because of their ethnicity. Alongside local issues, global and international events, such as the Black Lives Matter movement and Brexit have thrust issues of race into the mainstream, which for some have been challenging.

…Imagine being born in a country that you feel you don’t belong to, that’s kind of how it feels really. …Ethnic minorities at the minute are struggling and feeling even more lost.

(Participant A).

This evidently contrasts with statements made by Participant F (“I am a Yorkshire boy…”) and Participant I (“I’ve connected to this area and I feel this is my home”) who, having migrated to Britain, feel that they have assimilated into British society. However, it must be remembered that a person’s sense of belonging is deeply personal and can be influenced by a variety of factors.

Re-evaluation of the ‘now’ and different ideas of the new normal has led to revised visions of the future

The dramatic changes brought about by the pandemic had revised participants’ visions of the future, speculation about that future varied widely with differing visions of what the ‘new normal’ may look like. Some participants felt their loss of control equated to a loss of rights, and the revising of rules by the government resulted in the inability to plan, fostering for some a sense of being trapped.

You feel like your rights are being taken away and you’re not being notified. The laws keep changing.

(Participant L).

Some participants reported that future comfort was associated more with financial security than with their health status as although they had remained untouched by illness, they had been affected by financial hardship and personal restrictions.

There was also some sense of forced positivity to counter negative experiences during the pandemic, where participants described the importance of having things to look forward to and getting back to normal activities.

I just don’t seem to be thinking for the future or any long term plans, so my plan now is just to basically keep going, try to find a job, save as much money as I can and just try to keep upbeat because it’s been really really hard.

(Participant J)

Dissemination and application

A summary of these findings was in the second quarterly report on progress to address COVID-19 health inequalities. Within the 6 themes identified, the most noteworthy points for the RDU were that:

• participants felt that their ability to adapt and adjust, along with their degree of hope and pragmatism, was largely dictated by the social and economic resources available
• participants’ perceptions of risk were influenced by their beliefs, exposure to media and personal experiences of COVID-19, among other factors. As such, management strategies were based on each individual’s assessment and interpretation of these complex and cumulative risks

An update on the measures taken to address COVID-19 disparities was reported in the Third quarterly report on progress to address COVID-19 health inequalities.

Dissemination across government

The RDU has also shared these findings with a variety of government departments through policy-focussed workshops. 8 webinars were conducted between April and May 2021 to a total of 131 attendees from various governmental departments including Public Health England national and regional teams. While noting that a study of 12 participants is not large enough to use as a foundation for policy development in isolation, departments reported having found the insights useful and informative.

Attendees recognised the unhelpful and stigmatising language used in the media, including the use of BAME as a ‘catch all’. It was noted that such language serves to disengage, isolate and stigmatise ethnic minority populations. Attendees also noted the theme of trust in government and other institutions and also that trust between the public and institutions is essential to society as a whole.

Discussions also centred around the COVID-19 restrictions and the impact of these restrictions on the individual’s support system – for example, restrictions on gathering in religious buildings, when faith was observed as a pillar of support for some of the research participants. The discussions included generating ideas to enhance support, particularly around faith, family and friends.

Positive developments were also discussed in the webinars, with some participants suggesting that access to healthcare services has improved for some groups during the pandemic.

Evaluation

Overall, this investigation and analysis of the experiences of participants from ethnic minority groups during COVID-19 highlighted some of the everyday issues people had to confront during the pandemic. These findings were particular to the research participants and due to the sample size could not be considered to represent any group more widely. RDU and Policy Lab ensured findings and insights reached colleagues across government, where they were well received. This summary ensures that the insights from this investigation are available to those outside of government working to reduce COVID-19 and post pandemic disparities.