Skip to content
View commentaries on this research

This is a plain English summary of an original research article. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and reviewer(s) at the time of publication.

A two-day workshop brought together community organisations and health researchers. This 'sandpit' event was designed to promote new conversations between health researchers and people from diverse and marginalised groups. It aimed to shift the power balance, and to encourage and fund innovations suggested by community members.

Sandpit events seek to build and level relationships between different groups of people. This workshop was a joint venture between the Greater Manchester Black and Minority Ethnic (GMBME) Network, a public involvement team (Vocal), artists and several researchers. Community members designed and pitched their own ideas for research projects. Everyone at the workshop voted, and the top six projects received funding. The workshop encouraged participants to express their views and, in this way, uncover innovative health solutions.

The need for public involvement in health research is widely accepted. Working collaboratively with communities can help make research relevant and representative of the population. However, people with experience of inequalities are often under-represented.

Previous research has explored barriers to their involvement. This initiative found that a sandpit event could encourage communities to be more involved in setting priorities for research. It outlines a method of involving the public in research, which could be used widely by other teams.

What’s the issue?

Public involvement can help ensure that research meets the needs of the whole population. It is especially necessary in health research. Members of the public can, for instance, be involved in advisory groups, and in designing and interpreting research.

To be effective, public involvement needs to be inclusive and diverse. But currently, younger people and ethnic minority groups are under-represented. A survey in 2018-2019 found that only one in 30 NIHR public contributors were from Asian ethnic groups and one in 50 from Black ethnic groups.

NIHR INVOLVE was the umbrella organisation for public involvement in NHS research. It provided support for patients and members of the public to be involved in research. It also helped researchers to involve members of the public. This work has now been taken over by the NIHR.

Previous research has explored reasons for the lack of public involvement from minority ethnic groups in health research. Four types of barrier have been described:

  • research culture (such as the attitudes of researchers, non-inclusive study design, communication barriers)
  • healthcare (structural health inequalities, racism)
  • society and heritage (mistrust of institutions and/or healthcare providers)
  • barriers within communities (lack of understanding of the research process, socioeconomic status, stigma).

There are guides and toolkits available to help researchers work with diverse groups and communities.

This initiative brought together researchers, community organisations, public engagement practitioners and artists. They explored solutions to the lack of diversity among people involved in health research.

What’s new?

A public involvement team, Vocal, teamed up with the Greater Manchester Black and Minority Ethnic Network (GMBME Network) to co-design and deliver the event. The event was therefore designed with real insight about what community organisations value. Co-design was essential to the success of the project.

The sandpit involved more than 30 people, including 15 community members, 5 researchers and 6 creative and engagement practitioners. Community members received a fee, in line with NIHR guidance.

The first day explored public engagement in health research in Greater Manchester. It included a range of activities to generate discussion, reflection and learning. A priority was to create a space where everyone felt comfortable to speak without fear of criticism or discrimination. Activities included role-play in which participants sat on mini-patient advisory panels discussing real-life examples of research.

On the second day, researchers joined the discussions. There were presentations about health conditions and their prevalence in diverse communities.

Community representatives were invited to work in small groups to design and pitch a project that would encourage their communities to get involved in research. Everyone voted and 6 selected projects were awarded funds. Funded projects included research into skin problems affecting members of the African community in Manchester, domestic violence in Black Nigerian women, and menopause in South Asian women (often a taboo subject).

To evaluate the work, the team surveyed sandpit participants and interviewed researchers. They ran a focus group for representatives of the community organisation. The format was well-received and demonstrated an effective way for researchers to work well with community organisations.

Why is this important?

Current methods of engagement and involvement are not effectively encouraging marginalised groups to participate. This sandpit event brought together diverse groups in a neutral space. Everyone was helped to feel comfortable and that their view mattered as much as anyone else’s.

Participants found the event interesting, generally felt that it was inclusive and that their voices were heard. All participants found the sandpit a good way of getting people to work together. They said it addressed power dynamics between researchers and communities. By the end of the second day, participants had greater understanding of the need for public involvement in research. One participant said: “It was fun and relaxed but with a really focused and important message”.

Researchers also found the event valuable. They said it challenged some of their original ideas about community engagement. One researcher said: “We talk about collaboration and partnership working but it doesn’t actually happen. This event put community organisations on an equal footing and values their time and input”. Another said: “As a researcher, [it] really opened my eyes to the fact that engaging communities wasn’t that hard. We are told almost from the start as students that they are hard to reach.” One participant said, “We are not that hard to reach, but we might find it hard to trust you …”.

This event was carefully prepared. The study emphasises that public involvement is a relationship not an intervention. Relationships between researchers and community groups take time and work from all parties. They need mutual agreement on what they are aiming to achieve.

What’s next?

Since the community event:

  • an advisory group (BRAG, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Research Advisory Group) was established to advise researchers in Greater Manchester on more inclusive practices
  • 3 community organisations are now directly involved with health research projects
  • several community participants have joined a strategic group to provide community knowledge.

In addition, many participants said they felt more confident in engaging with health research.

As a result of feedback in the surveys, the public involvement team said they would adapt any future community sandpits. They would:

  • give more time for pitch development on the first day
  • be clear about the amount of funding available
  • redesign the voting process to ensure that the chosen projects more clearly reflect the priorities of the community (rather than the researchers')
  • be more clear that only projects focusing on health research would be funded.

The researchers would like to run another community sandpit in early-stage (preclinical) research. Public involvement in this type of research is lacking.

The team stressed that sandpit events should not require funding from community organisations that they might not get back. Events should also limit the amount of time these organisations need to put in.

You may be interested to read

This summary is based on: Islam S, and others. “We are not hard to reach, but we may find it hard to trust” …. Involving and engaging ‘seldom listened to’ community voices in clinical translational health research: a social innovation approach. Research Involvement and Engagement 2021;7:46

A trial of the INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework: Treweek S, and others. Developing the INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework—a tool to help trialists design trials that better reflect the communities they serve. Trials 2021;22:337

A commentary on COVID-19 research and ethnicity: Treweek S, and others. COVID-19 and ethnicity: who will research results apply to? The Lancet 2020;395:10242

Being inclusive in public involvement in health and care research: guidance from the NIHR for researchers and practitioners.

A practical guide to being inclusive in public involvement in health research: a guide to accompany the Being Inclusive in Public Involvement in Research paper.

An earlier paper exploring power and relationships in public involvement in health research: Locock L, and others. The power of symbolic capital in patient and public involvement in health research. Health Expectations 2017;20:5

Photo: Jill Jennings.

Funding: This paper is funded by NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre and the NIHR Manchester Clinical Research Facility.

Conflicts of Interest: The study authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Disclaimer: Summaries on NIHR Evidence are not a substitute for professional medical advice. They provide information about research which is funded or supported by the NIHR. Please note that the views expressed are those of the author(s) and reviewer(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

NIHR Evidence is covered by the creative commons, CC-BY licence. Written content may be freely reproduced provided that suitable acknowledgement is made. Note, this license excludes comments made by third parties, audiovisual content, and linked content on other websites.

  • Share via:
  • Print article
Back to top