P21 Collection and reporting of equality act 2010 protected characteristics within studies of pulmonary rehabilitation in the United Kingdom

• Published in: Thorax Vol. 78; no. Suppl 4; pp. A118 - A119
• Main Authors: Drover, H, Daynes, E, Gardiner, L, Singh, SJ, Orme, MW
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and British Thoracic Society 06.11.2023; BMJ Publishing Group LTD
• Subjects: Civil unions; Equality; Gender; Sexual orientation; ‘Walk this way’ – Innovations in pulmonary rehabilitation; United Kingdom > UK
• ISSN: 0040-6376; 1468-3296
• DOI: 10.1136/thorax-2023-BTSabstracts.173

BackgroundUnder the Equality Act 2010, it is illegal to discriminate based on protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation). It is anecdotally reported that pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is poorly attended by minority groups. However, the extent to which protected characteristics are collected and reported, and therefore who is accessing PR, remains unclear.ObjectivesTo describe the ways in which Equality Act 2010 protected characteristics have been reported in UK studies of PR.MethodsA systematic scoping review following PRISMA-ScR guidelines was conducted across five databases. UK studies of any design collecting data on PR from 1st October 2010 (date of Equality Act 2010 inception) were eligible.ResultsOf 36 included studies, 97% (n=35) reported the age of participants, 42% (n=15) reported sex and 19% (n=7) reported gender with only male and female categories. In 17% of studies (n=6), it was unclear if authors reported sex or gender, 8% (n=3) used the terms ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ interchangeably and 8% (n=3) reported either male or female, but did not state if this was sex or gender. The majority sex or gender was reported in 70% (n=14) studies. Race was reported through ethnicity in 3% (n=1) of studies and 8% (n=3) discussed the homogeneity of the race of participants as a study limitation. No studies explicitly reported the disability of participants, but all studies reported measures indicating disease severity and functional ability (e.g. FEV1% predicted (81% (n=29)) and incremental shuttle walk test (72% (n=26))). No studies reported gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, religion or belief or sexual orientation.ConclusionsApart from age, Equality Act 2010 protected characteristics are either not commonly reported or inconsistently reported in PR studies, and therefore access and representativeness of this intervention remains unclear. A standardised reporting framework would be beneficial.Please refer to page A289 for declarations of interest related to this abstract.