ArticleBMJ open2022
Black sickle cell patients' lives matter: healthcare, long-term shielding and psychological distress during a racialised pandemic in England - a mixed-methods study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The acceptability and feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of serial prophylactic exchange blood transfusion versus usual care in pregnant women with sickle cell disease: a qualitative study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Trial
- Article
- A Scoping Review of Qualitative Studies on Inpatient Care for Individuals with Sickle Cell Disease.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Evidence of inequities experienced by the rare disease community with respect to receipt of a diagnosis and access to services: a scoping review of UK and international evidence.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Article
- The use of race and ethnicity in sickle cell disease research.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Review
- The indignities of shielding during the COVID-19 pandemic for people with sickle cell disorders: an interpretative phenomenological analysis.Frontiers in sociology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo understand the psychological and social impact of shielding on people with sickle cell disorders and their carers in the Midlands region of England. This region was badly affected during the pandemic, with the city of Birmingham having some of the highest rates of COVID-19 deaths.
designA mixed-methods project with a quantitative survey on shielding and adapted SF36 V.2 questionnaire, which was supplemented by qualitative semistructured interviews analysed using interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA).
participantsFifty-one participants who were predominantly of Black Caribbean or Black African heritage anonymously took part in the online survey. We supplemented this with eight in-depth semistructured interviews with adults with sickle cell disorders using IPA.
resultsThe adapted 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF36) version 2 (V. 2) survey indicated worse quality of life and mental health. The open-ended questions from the adapted survey also identified shielding concerns about hospital care, pain management and knowledge of sickle cell by healthcare professionals. From the interviews, it emerged that the racialised element of the pandemic caused significant psychological distress for a population group that had to regularly access hospitals. It was noted that psychological health needs both during a pandemic and outside of it were poorly understood and became invisible in services. The psychological impact of experiences of hospital care as well as growing up with an invisible chronic condition were important to understand psychologically.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.