Bridging inequities in palliative and end-of-life care: The role and experiences of community connectors

Abstract

Background:

The Community Connectors programme is a UK pilot initiative designed to bridge gaps between cancer, palliative, and end-of-life care services and diverse ethnic and faith communities. Community Connectors are local individuals with strong cultural insight who enhance two-way communication, increase awareness of care services, and address the unique needs of seldom-heard groups, including South Asian, Black African-Caribbean, and Eastern European communities. By engaging trusted community members, the programme aims to foster relationships, empower communities, and improve understanding of cancer and palliative care pathways among underserved populations.

Objective:

To explore the experiences and perspectives of Community Connectors implementing this model, with a focus on feasibility, acceptability, and perceived impact within target communities.

Methods:

A qualitative longitudinal design was employed using linked interviews and reflective diaries. A qualitative descriptive approach was used to explore evolving perceptions of the role, community engagement, and barriers to care access. Semi-structured interviews (N = 3) were conducted between July 2023 and April 2024, focusing on emerging themes and changes in perceptions. In addition, Community Connectors (N = 4) kept diaries and activity logs to document their community interactions, challenges, and key observations throughout their involvement in the project.

Results:

Community Connectors reported success in building trust and relationships within the community, emphasising that trust, integrity, and passion for the role were more important than financial reward. Initially, there was confusion about the role, with expectations of marketing work evolving into a focus on research and engagement. They faced several challenges, including time constraints linked to the part-time nature of the role, as well as cultural sensitivities, language barriers, and stigma around cancer. Despite difficulties in measuring impact, Connectors reported personal growth, strong community relationships, and a sense of reward from their involvement.

Conclusion:

The Community Connector model is a feasible and culturally responsive approach to improving access to cancer and palliative care in underserved communities. Future programmes should provide clearer role definitions, sustained funding, and training in emotional resilience and cultural competence. Further research is needed to assess the long-term impact of this model on health outcomes and its integration into mainstream health services.

Keywords

cancer palliative and end-of-life care health inequalities Community Connectors ethnic minorities

Introduction

Persistent and growing health inequalities remain a pressing issue for healthcare providers and policymakers, including in high-income countries.¹ This inequality is particularly evident in cancer care, where ethnic diversity and low socioeconomic status are consistently associated with an increased risk of premature death.² Disparities in cancer treatment and access to palliative and end-of-life care present a significant challenge, as equitable access to hospice care remains an urgent but unfulfilled need.^3–5

Healthcare policies increasingly acknowledge the diverse needs of communities and seek to provide personalised, appropriate care, particularly for populations at greater risk of health inequalities, including those affected by cancer.⁶ Within this context, national end-of-life care strategies have long promoted a vision of a ‘good death’, defined as one that is pain-free, dignified, and aligned with an individual’s values and preferences, irrespective of age, gender, ethnicity, religious belief, disability, sexual orientation, diagnosis, or socioeconomic status.⁷ More recent frameworks reinforce this vision by emphasising the principle of ‘fair access to care’ for all.⁸ These two concepts are closely connected. Without equitable access to culturally sensitive, timely, and person-centred services, the aspiration for a good death cannot be achieved for everyone. This study builds on this policy context by exploring how these principles are understood and enacted in practice, particularly for communities that continue to face barriers to high-quality end-of-life care.

Despite these policy commitments, evidence consistently demonstrates that ethnic minority groups are less likely to access hospice and palliative care services compared to majority populations.^4,9 Beyond issues of access, significant barriers including cultural, linguistic, and systemic challenges contribute to a disconnect between these services and the communities they aim to support,^4,5 leaving cancer patients particularly affected by these disparities.^10,11 In the United Kingdom, reduced access to cancer care has been reported across various ethnic minority populations, underscoring the urgent need to address these inequities.¹²

In the context of cancer, timely access to palliative and end-of-life care is essential for improving quality of life, managing symptoms, and supporting informed decision-making. Best practice models advocate for early integration of palliative care alongside cancer treatment, enabling better coordination of care and more person-centred planning.^6–8 When access is delayed or absent, patients and families are more likely to experience unmanaged pain, emotional distress, and avoidable hospitalisation in the final stages of life.^3,4,10,12

Health services continue to face challenges in engaging ‘seldom-heard’ individuals and communities, and the lack of accessibility remains a key policy issue.¹³ Throughout this study, we use the term ‘seldom heard’ to refer to individuals and communities who face significant barriers to accessing healthcare, including structural, linguistic, cultural, or socioeconomic factors. This aligns with similar concepts, such as hardly reached, and we have adopted a consistent terminology for clarity. Seldom heard refers to individuals and communities that face significant barriers, such as language, cultural differences, socioeconomic factors, or mistrust, which limit their access to healthcare and other essential services. While there is a sustained effort and commitment to providing universal health coverage, services often fail to address the nuanced socio-cultural barriers that influence access to healthcare.¹⁴ One proposed solution is the use of Community Connectors (CCs), trusted individuals within communities who routinely navigate socio-cultural boundaries and use their influence to facilitate engagement with health services.¹⁵

Community Connectors offer a grassroots approach to bridging the gap between healthcare providers and underrepresented populations. Originating in public health and social care initiatives in the United Kingdom and internationally, Community Connector roles have developed over the past two decades as part of wider efforts to reduce health inequalities through community engagement.^16,17 While models vary, the role typically involves individuals with strong local knowledge and lived experience who are trusted within their communities. Unlike lay helpers or general volunteers, Community Connectors are often trained, remunerated, and embedded within health or social care systems to deliver targeted interventions.¹⁸ Their remit extends beyond informal support, encompassing community engagement, signposting, health promotion, and feedback loops to services.

Evidence from related initiatives, such as social prescribing link workers and community health champions, suggests that community-based roles can improve service reach, increase health literacy, and build trust among marginalised groups.^19,20 Although formal evaluations of Community Connectors in palliative care remain limited, studies show that similar roles can be effective in reducing health inequalities through culturally rooted community engagement.^21,22

By leveraging their deep understanding of cultural contexts, Community Connectors promote conversations on critical health topics including cancer symptom recognition, treatment pathways, and end-of-life planning. This has been documented in recent public health responses where connectors and community leaders played key roles in improving trust, awareness, and uptake of services in marginalised communities.^20,21 Their role has received national recognition and forms part of broader strategies to improve health outcomes and reduce inequalities. The NHS England Core20PLUS5 framework highlights the importance of targeted interventions for the most deprived communities, and Community Connectors align with this approach by addressing barriers at the local level.¹⁵ However, to date, no research has systematically evaluated the feasibility and impact of Community Connectors in reducing health disparities in cancer, palliative, and end-of-life care.

This paper presents an evaluation of the Community Connector role in a diverse urban setting where several new roles were funded in partnership with healthcare organisations and community stakeholders. Funding was secured through collaborations between cancer organisations, local authorities, and integrated healthcare bodies, facilitated by a research partnership network comprising academic, community, and stakeholder partners representing diverse communities.²³

The Community Connector initiative aims to foster meaningful two-way communication between healthcare services and diverse ethnic and faith communities. While the Community Connector role was originally developed to support underserved populations more broadly, this iteration was specifically designed to address barriers faced by ethnically diverse communities in accessing cancer, palliative, and end-of-life care. These roles seek to broker relationships between healthcare services and community leaders who influence care-seeking behaviours. This paper examines the feasibility of the Community Connector model in reducing disparities in cancer, palliative, and end-of-life care by exploring its implementation, impact, and potential for scalability in ethnically diverse communities.

This study hypothesises that the Community Connector role can be effectively implemented in ethnically diverse settings and can enhance knowledge, awareness, and understanding of cancer, palliative, and end-of-life care services, as well as the community’s perspectives on death, dying, and caregiving. Findings will contribute to the growing body of evidence on community-led interventions in health equity and may inform future policy and practice aimed at addressing healthcare disparities.

Methods

Description of the intervention

This study focused on evaluating the acceptability and feasibility of a ‘Community Connector’ intervention within cancer, palliative, and end-of-life care pathways. The intervention was introduced in response to an investigation into health-related inequalities, which highlighted significant gaps in patient and community experiences, particularly among seldom-heard populations in cancer care.²⁴ One of the key recommendations from the review was the establishment of new ‘Community Connector’ roles aimed at improving access to cancer and end-of-life care for ethnically diverse communities. These roles were designed to address the unique challenges faced by underrepresented groups and ensure that their needs are met within the healthcare system. The Community Connector’s role involves building and sustaining relationships within local populations, facilitating conversations around cancer symptom recognition, risk factors, treatment access, care pathways, end-of-life care, good death, loss, bereavement, and offering information about palliative care services.

In this study, Community Connectors are embedded within South Asian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi; Eastern European; and Black African and Caribbean communities in an urban setting with significant ethnic diversity and economic deprivation in the Southeast of England. These localities, while distinct, share characteristics of ethnic diversity and social challenges.²⁵ Some urban areas experience high levels of deprivation, with diverse groups residing in conditions that impact health access and outcomes.

Participants

The participants in this study were four Community Connectors with diverse backgrounds, aligned to the largest minority groups across the region: Community Connector A (CCA), a female from a South Asian background; Community Connector B (CCB), a female from a Black Caribbean background; Community Connector C (CCC), a male from a South Asian background; and Community Connector D (CCD), a male from an Eastern European background. These individuals were purposively selected, having been specifically recruited for the Community Connector role, with three employed by local councils and one by a local hospice in a crowdfunded position. They were appointed to carry out community engagement work as part of a funded programme, and their participation in the research followed as part of an embedded evaluation requested by the funder. All Community Connectors were invited to take part in the study; no inclusion or exclusion criteria were applied. Nobody declined to participate or withdrew during the course of the study. Ethical approval for the study was granted by the University of Bedfordshire’s Institute for Health Research Ethics Committee (REF IHR1004) in June 2023. Before collecting any data, informed consent was obtained from all participants. Community Connectors were given clear information about the study, including its purpose and their right to take part voluntarily. All interviews and diary entries were anonymised, securely stored, and managed in line with GDPR and the university’s data protection policies.

Data collection began approximately 6 months after the recruitment of the Community Connectors, although not all participants started their roles at the same time. While all interviews were conducted at the same time, the participants’ experiences differed based on when they began their roles. CCA started in October 2022, CCB began in May 2023, CCC started in June 2023, and CCD began in November 2022. The timing of their roles meant that their experiences and reflections during data collection were influenced by how long they had been in the role, providing a range of perspectives on the intervention’s implementation at different stages.

Procedure and data analysis

Data collection for this study involved a combination of longitudinal-linked interviews and diary entries. The interviews were conducted at multiple points to track the evolving experiences of the Community Connectors over time. The initial interviews focused on understanding their roles, rewards, challenges, and any changes in their practice. Following the initial interviews, participants were asked to complete weekly diary entries, reflecting on significant events and their feelings, insights, and future actions. These diaries allowed for deeper personal reflection on their experiences in the role. Follow-up interviews were conducted to explore how the roles and experiences had changed since the initial interview and to gather further details based on the reflections captured in the diaries. A summary of the interview and diary schedules is provided in Supplemental File 2, which includes the specific questions and prompts used during data collection. This combination of interviews and diaries provided a rich, longitudinal dataset to assess the impact and cultural appropriateness of the intervention.

The Community Connector interviews were conducted by the lead researcher, J.W., a female Research Fellow with a doctorate in education and expertise in qualitative methods, including interviews. J.W. established a trusting relationship with the participants by ensuring they understood the study’s goals and that all data would remain anonymous. She also clarified that the study was a quality improvement research project commissioned by the funder, aimed at assessing the feasibility, acceptability, and cultural appropriateness of the Community Connector intervention. Participants were able to contact the researcher via WhatsApp messages, email, or telephone if they had any questions or concerns throughout the study. The interviews took place face-to-face in July and November 2023, with the final interview conducted online in April 2024. Each Community Connector took part in three interviews throughout the study period, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of their experiences over time. The interviews averaged 1 h in length and were audio recorded, or video recorded for transcription and subsequent analysis, ensuring accurate data capture and facilitating a detailed examination of the participants’ perspectives. Field notes were also taken during the interviews to capture additional contextual observations and reflections, further enriching the analysis.

As the researcher, J.W. acknowledged her potential biases, assumptions, and interests in the topic, particularly her commitment to improving access to culturally appropriate healthcare for marginalised communities. With a strong background in qualitative research, J.W.’s interest in the study stemmed from her long-standing focus on social equity and healthcare access for diverse populations. She ensured that these interests did not influence the data collection process by maintaining a reflexive approach throughout the study, continually reflecting on her role and the potential impact of her perspectives on the research process. This approach helped mitigate any biases, ensuring the validity and trustworthiness of the findings.

In addition to the interviews, a total of 38 diary entries were submitted by the participants, capturing their ongoing reflections and experiences throughout the study period. Some participants preferred to submit diary entries on a weekly or fortnightly basis, while others opted for quarterly reports. Not all Community Connectors provided the same number of diary entries, which reflects individual preferences for reflection frequency and the varying demands of their roles. This variation highlights the flexibility of the data collection approach and provides insight into the differing ways participants engaged with the study. These diary entries provided valuable insights into the day-to-day realities of the Community Connector role, complementing the interview data and contributing to a comprehensive understanding of the intervention’s implementation.

The data collected from interviews and diary entries were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, as outlined by Braun and Clarke,²⁶ a widely used qualitative research method that supports flexible, in-depth exploration of experiential data. This approach enabled the identification, analysis, and interpretation of patterns across the dataset while remaining attentive to the situated contexts and subjectivities of both participants and researchers.

We followed Braun and Clarke’s six-phase process to guide the analysis. First, data familiarisation involved repeated reading of transcripts and diary entries to gain a deep understanding of the content. Second, initial codes were generated inductively across the entire dataset using NVivo 12 software.²⁷ Third, codes were organised into candidate themes that captured key elements of the Community Connectors’ experiences. Fourth, these themes were reviewed against the coded data and the full dataset to ensure coherence and relevance. Fifth, themes were defined and refined to ensure distinctiveness and alignment with the study aims. Finally, the sixth phase involved producing the report and integrating representative extracts.

Analysis was conducted by J.W., who coded and developed case studies for each Community Connector before comparing findings across participants to identify shared and divergent experiences. To enhance trustworthiness and rigour, the analysis followed a reflexive approach that acknowledged researcher positionality and maintained an audit trail throughout coding and theme development. Regular peer debriefing within the research team supported critical reflection and credibility checking. While there were no major discrepancies in theme identification, interpretative differences were discussed collaboratively to ensure transparency and coherence. A COREQ checklist is included as Supplemental File 1 to support methodological transparency.

Results

The role of Community Connectors has evolved significantly, shaping both their personal experiences and the broader impact on communities. Analysis of interviews and reflective diary entries generated eight key themes: (1) The Role of a Community Connector, (2) Evolving Job Expectations, (3) Building Networks and Engagement, (4) Communication Strategies and Community Engagement, (5) Challenges and Constraints, (6) Development of the Role, (7) Measuring Impact and Personal Learning, and (8) Rewards and Support. These themes reflect the challenges, rewards, and effectiveness of their work. The findings highlight the importance of trust-building, community engagement, and role development, as well as the constraints faced in carrying out their responsibilities. The reflections provide a deeper understanding of how the project progressed, the strategies employed, and the areas requiring further support.

The eight themes were developed through an iterative process of coding and theme refinement. Initial codes were drawn directly from the data and grouped into broader themes reflecting shared experiences and patterns across participants. While themes are analytically constructed, they remain closely grounded in participants’ reflections. Additional details on how codes informed each theme are provided below to support transparency.

The role of a community connector

A Community Connector must be a trusted and integral part of the community to gain acceptance. Many communities are initially cautious, making trust-building essential before individuals feel comfortable sharing their experiences. Effective communication skills, passion, and cultural familiarity are key attributes.

Integrity, you have to be a key member of that community because they are very reserved. So, for them to accept something or learn something completely different, it’s easier if they trust you. (CCC)

Not until you’ve built a relationship and people know who you are, they will not let out their story. But you have to have that relationship. Trust. (CCA)

These quotes reflect the importance of lived experience and embeddedness within the community. Trust and relationship-building emerged as foundational to the effectiveness of the role, especially in communities where disclosure of personal health experiences is rare or culturally discouraged.

Evolving job expectations

Initially, Connectors expected a role focused on raising awareness through marketing and presentations. However, they found that much of the work involved direct conversations and research. While the lack of initial materials caused frustration, the introduction of a website and leaflets helped clarify their responsibilities. The evolving nature of the role was ultimately seen as beneficial.

It’s not just presentations; it’s having a conversation. (CCC)

There is now much more clarity in terms of our role and what we’re expected to achieve. (CCB)

These statements illustrate how Connectors moved from an initial assumption of a one-way communication role to a more dialogic and adaptive approach. The evolution of expectations and clarification of purpose over time was viewed positively and contributed to increased confidence.

Building networks and engagement

Networking has been crucial in establishing relationships with other organisations. Over time, instead of actively seeking opportunities, Connectors began receiving invitations to events, reflecting progress in relationship-building.

Now, people are inviting us instead of us seeking them out. That’s progress. (CCB)

As trust grew, community engagement increased, with more individuals approaching Connectors for support.

A lot more engagement. People are more open to having conversations because they are comfortable speaking with someone from their community. (CCC)

These reflections show progress in relational capital. The shift from outreach to invitation signals increased visibility and legitimacy, while greater openness among community members suggests that sustained presence-built familiarity and lowered barriers to engagement.

Communication strategies and community engagement

Various strategies have been used to reach communities, including translated materials, social media, and traditional media like radio. Ensuring people understand how to access available services has been a priority.

Our job is to make them understand that they can get the right support. (CCD)

Feedback was overwhelmingly positive, with strong engagement at events and growing collaboration with organisations to address health concerns. The role has facilitated discussions around sensitive health topics such as cancer, mental health, and end-of-life care.

The feedback was amazing; we certainly created a difference. (CCA)

Opportunities to speak to the audience and speakers were revealing. If we were able to change patterns of behaviour, motivate people to think about how cancer can impact their lives, then what an accolade. (CCB)

These quotes show how Connectors tailored their messaging through a mix of strategies. The feedback indicates resonance with audiences, particularly when communication addressed emotional and cultural dimensions of care. Community events also served as key platforms for both dialogue and impact.

Challenges and constraints

Managing workload within limited hours has been difficult, with many Connectors expressing the need for a full-time role. Time constraints and workload pressures were recurrent concerns, making it difficult to balance responsibilities.

Limited time for preparations. (CCA)

This role should be at least a full-time role or 30+ hours, as I have been working beyond my contracted hours. (CCA)

Challenges included cultural sensitivities, language barriers, and overcoming stigma around cancer. Although Community Connectors had strong roots in their communities, they did not necessarily represent all subgroups. Many communities were linguistically and culturally diverse, with members speaking a range of languages and dialects that the Connectors did not always share. This created difficulties in communication and required tailored approaches to build trust. In some cases, stigma around cancer or reluctance to discuss end-of-life issues added to the complexity of engagement. Building trust within first-generation communities, particularly where past experiences with healthcare were negative or communication needs unmet, required persistence and sensitivity.

The difficult bit is getting people to talk to you. Some have had very traumatic experiences. (CCB)

Maintaining work–life balance was also a challenge, as work remained on their minds even during time off.

I am on annual leave this week, but work is still at the back of my mind. (CCB)

These quotes capture both practical and emotional pressures. Limited hours restricted planning and delivery, while emotional demands, especially when working with people affected by trauma or serious illness, contributed to role strain. Connectors’ deep commitment sometimes blurred work–life boundaries, underlining the need for formal support structures.

Development of the role

Strong management support enabled Connectors to shape the project, gain confidence, and establish valuable connections. There was a growing excitement as the project gathered momentum.

I was able to steer this project with the help and guidance of my manager. (CCA)

I have developed a good understanding of my role and my purpose throughout this year. (CCC)

The momentum is gathering now, and I am excited. (CCB)

These reflections demonstrate increased ownership and professional growth. As confidence grew and responsibilities became clearer, Connectors described a sense of momentum and agency, suggesting a maturing of both role and identity within the project.

Measuring impact and personal learning

Success is measured through increased diversity in hospice patients, stronger community connections, and greater awareness of available services. Key indicators include trust, engagement, and positive feedback.

If we can get people to talk, that’s the biggest achievement. (CCD)

Connectors also highlighted the importance of understanding their audience and adjusting their approach accordingly.

I learnt to value the audience. I will go away and adjust my presentation to reflect this. (CCB)

Connectors assessed impact less through metrics and more through relational change. Facilitating dialogue in contexts of silence or stigma was considered a significant success. Their reflections also show adaptive learning, where feedback informed future practice.

Rewards and support

Despite the challenges, Connectors found the role rewarding, both personally and professionally. They valued the relationships built, the skills learned, and the ability to make a difference. A supportive and collaborative environment further enhanced their experience.

Making connections and developing relationships has been really rewarding. (CCB)

It feels like a big family now, where we can work together and put our skills to use. (CCA)

These final quotes reflect the intrinsic satisfaction derived from the role. Positive peer dynamics and the ability to contribute meaningfully to their communities reinforced a strong sense of purpose and motivation, even amidst challenges.

Overall, the findings illustrate the evolving nature of the Community Connector role, the positive impact on community engagement, and the need for ongoing support and resources to sustain its effectiveness.

Discussion

Feasibility and acceptability of the community connector role

Findings from this study indicate that the Community Connector model is a feasible and acceptable approach to improving engagement with cancer, palliative, and end-of-life care services within diverse communities. Community Connectors played a vital role in bridging cultural and structural barriers, facilitating access to information, and fostering trust between healthcare providers and marginalised groups. These findings align with previous research highlighting the disparities in cancer treatment and access to palliative care among ethnic minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.^2,10,14 As highlighted in the Introduction, ethnic minority populations in the United Kingdom are significantly less likely to access hospice care, often due to mistrust, limited cultural awareness among providers, and inadequate community engagement.^4,5,9 This study reinforces those patterns and provides evidence that Community Connectors offer a practical route to reducing these disparities.

The longitudinal-linked interviews and reflective diaries highlighted how Community Connectors successfully embedded themselves within their communities, leveraging existing relationships and cultural knowledge to support individuals navigating complex care pathways. However, challenges such as workload intensity, emotional strain, and the need for ongoing training were identified, suggesting areas for further development to enhance role sustainability. Community Connectors emphasised the importance of trust and clear role expectations in ensuring the success of the model, yet many expressed the need for full-time positions to manage their workload effectively. This reflects the broader challenges identified in engaging ‘seldom-heard’ groups¹³ and ensuring sustainable interventions.

Impact on community engagement and awareness

Community Connectors were found to increase awareness of cancer symptoms, care pathways, palliative services, and end-of-life planning within diverse communities. Their culturally sensitive approaches helped reduce stigma and foster open dialogue on topics that are often considered taboo. Community members reported feeling more confident about accessing services, and the presence of a trusted intermediary helped address fears and challenge misinformation, particularly around hospice care. While the model was effective in improving engagement, barriers such as institutional mistrust and language difficulties continued to affect access. These findings support the value of community-led engagement strategies but also highlight the need for broader systemic changes to improve equity in care.

The work of Community Connectors aligns with national efforts to reduce health disparities and advance culturally responsive care. Their ability to build trust and facilitate open conversations contributes to improved service awareness and may help to address the long-standing underuse of hospice and palliative care among ethnic minority communities. This reflects wider goals set out in the NHS Long Term Plan and the Core20PLUS5 framework, which advocate for inclusive, locally rooted solutions to health inequality.

Challenges and barriers

While the Community Connector model showed promise, several challenges emerged. The emotional demands of the role, particularly when supporting individuals facing terminal illness and bereavement, were significant. Community Connectors reported the need for emotional resilience training and structured peer support to mitigate burnout. Additionally, institutional constraints, such as limited funding and inconsistent organisational support, posed barriers to long-term programme sustainability. Addressing these challenges requires a structured framework that includes tailored training on emotional resilience, cultural competence, and managing difficult conversations around illness and bereavement. Connectors would also benefit from regular clinical supervision, peer learning opportunities, and protected time for debriefing. In addition, clear role definitions and integration into multidisciplinary teams could reduce ambiguity and support more sustainable working practices within healthcare infrastructures. Despite these difficulties, Community Connectors felt supported by their teams and valued the opportunity to engage with their communities. These findings align with previous research indicating that community-driven approaches require sustained institutional backing to be effective.¹⁵

Policy and practice implications

The findings align with national health equity initiatives, including the Core20PLUS5 framework, which emphasises targeted interventions for deprived and marginalised populations. The Community Connector model represents a scalable strategy for addressing health inequalities by embedding trusted individuals within communities to facilitate access to services. The NHS’s commitment to addressing disparities in end-of-life care^7,8 provides a policy framework within which Community Connector initiatives could be further developed. Policymakers and healthcare organisations should consider integrating Community Connectors into broader public health initiatives, ensuring adequate training, supervision, and financial support to maximise impact.

In particular, there is scope to embed Community Connectors earlier in the care continuum, engaging with communities before individuals present with advanced illness. Their involvement in health promotion, early cancer awareness campaigns, and culturally tailored education could build trust and reduce stigma over time. Commissioners and health systems might consider formalising these roles within primary care networks or integrated care systems to facilitate proactive, not just reactive, outreach. Investment in training should be based on the specific challenges Connectors identified, including trauma-informed approaches, managing emotionally charged conversations, and navigating cultural taboos. Support mechanisms could include structured mentorship, regular supervision sessions, and inclusion in community of practice networks to strengthen retention and reduce burnout.

Strengths and limitations

A key strength of this study is its longitudinal qualitative design, which enabled detailed exploration of how the role evolved and how Community Connectors engaged with their communities over time. The use of multiple data sources, including interviews and reflective diaries, contributed to the richness and credibility of the findings. The inclusion of a COREQ checklist further supports transparency in reporting.

There are also limitations. The small sample size of four Community Connectors limited the breadth of the findings but allowed for deep, case-based comparison. In this sense, the small number of participants was both a strength and a limitation. The Connectors were selected for their community knowledge and trusted status, which may have positively influenced outcomes. These factors were considered through reflexive practice, and peer debriefing was used throughout the analysis to support rigour and reduce the influence of individual bias.

Future research directions

Further research is needed to evaluate the long-term impact of the Community Connector model on health outcomes and service utilisation. Comparative studies across different healthcare settings and populations could provide deeper insights into best practices for implementation. Additionally, exploring digital and hybrid models of community engagement may enhance the reach and sustainability of the Community Connector approach. Given the persistent disparities in palliative care access,^10–12 future research should also focus on how Community Connectors can be embedded into existing health service infrastructures to ensure long-term effectiveness. Future studies could also evaluate the effectiveness of early, preventative community engagement compared to late-stage intervention, helping to identify the most impactful points for Connector involvement.

Conclusion

This study highlights the feasibility, acceptability, and perceived impact of the Community Connector model in addressing healthcare disparities in cancer, palliative, and end-of-life care. Community Connectors played a vital role in improving engagement, raising awareness, and fostering trust within underserved communities. However, to sustain and scale this approach, ongoing support, clear role definitions, and attention to systemic barriers are needed. These findings support the value of community-led interventions in promoting equitable access to care and offer important insights for future policy and practice.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors hereby express their gratitude to the Community Connectors who participated in this study.

ORCID iDs

Jodi Emma Wainwright

Erica Jane Cook

Gurch Randhawa

Ethical considerations

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and all procedures were approved by the Ethics Committee of the Institute for Health Research, University of Bedfordshire (reference number IHREC1004).

Consent to participate

All participants were given an information sheet and had the opportunity to ask questions about the study, and all participants provided informed consent.

Consent for publication

Consent for participation and publication was obtained from all participants through a university-approved consent form, which explicitly stated that anonymised data would be used for research and publication purposes.

Author contributions

Jodi Emma Wainwright: Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Writing – original draft.

Erica Jane Cook: Conceptualisation; Methodology; Project administration; Writing – review & editing.

Nasreen Ali: Conceptualisation; Writing – review & editing.

Emma Wilkinson: Conceptualisation; Writing – review & editing.

Gurch Randhawa: Conceptualisation; Funding acquisition; Project administration; Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by the Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes (BLMK) Integrated Care Board.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability statement

The datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Wallace

Farmer

McCosker

Boundary spanning practices of community connectors for engaging ‘hardly reached’ people in health services. Soc Sci Med 2019; 232: 366–373.

Lewer

Jayatunga

Aldridge

, et al. Premature mortality attributable to socioeconomic inequality in England between 2003 and 2018: an observational study. Lancet Public Health 2020; 5(1): e33–e41.

Tobin

Rogers

Winterburn

, et al. Hospice care access inequalities: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. Support Palliat Care 2022; 12: 142–151.

Ali

Sundararajan

Ranasinha

, et al. Ethnic disparities in access to palliative care: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. Palliat Med 2022; 36(2): 145–156.

Calanzani

Koffman

Higginson

IJ.

Palliative and end of life care for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups in the UK: demographic profile and the current state of provision. London: King’s College London, 2020.

NHS. The NHS Long Term Plan [Internet], www.longtermplan.nhs.uk (2019, accessed March 2025).

Saunders

. End of life care strategy end of life care strategy promoting high quality care for all adults at the end of life ‘How people die remains in the memory of those who live on’ founder of the modern hospice movement [Internet], www.dh.gov.uk/publications (2008, accessed March 2025).

National Palliative and End of Life Care Partnership. Ambitions for Palliative and End of Life Care: a national framework for local action 2021–2026. National Palliative and End of Life Care Partnership, 2021.

Public Health England. Disparities in the risk and outcomes of COVID-19. London: PHE, 2021.

10.

Johnson

KS.

Racial and ethnic disparities in palliative care. J Palliat Med 2013; 16(11): 1329–1334.

11.

Lin

Zhu

Olchanski

, et al. Racial and ethnic differences in hospice use and hospitalizations at end-of-life among Medicare beneficiaries with dementia. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5(6): E2216260.

12.

Higginson

Sarmento

Calanzani

, et al. Dying at home – is it better: a narrative appraisal of the state of the science. Palliat Med 2013; 27: 918–924.

13.

Sokol

Fisher

Peer support for the hardly reached: a systematic review. Am J Public Health 2016; 106: e1–e8.

14.

World Health Organization. Tracking universal health coverage 2023 global monitoring report. World Health Organization, 2023.

15.

NHS. Core20PLUS5: an approach to reducing health inequalities. 2021.

16.

South

Meah

Bagnall

A-M

, et al. People in Public Health: a study of approaches to develop and support people in public health roles. NIHR, 2010.

17.

O’Mara-Eves

Brunton

McDaid

, et al. Community engagement to reduce inequalities in health: a systematic review, meta-analysis and economic analysis. Southampton, UK: NIHR Journals Library, 2013

18.

Bagnall

South

Southby

, et al. A systematic review of the community wellbeing impact of community business. Project Report. What Works Centre for Wellbeing, London, 2020.

19.

Lloyd

Rance

Understanding the implementation of social prescribing link workers in primary care: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 2021; 21: 822.

20.

Islam

Dumas

Thorlby

. Building trust and confidence: Insights from community-led responses to health inequalities. London: The Health Foundation, https://www.health.org.uk/publications/reports/building-trust-and-confidence (2023, accessed March 2025).

21.

Power

Doherty

Hartley

Community Connectors: reducing health inequalities through community engagement. Perspect Public Health 2022; 142(2): 66–67.

22.

Southby

Gamsu

Factors affecting general practice collaboration with voluntary and community sector organisations. Health Soc Care Community. 2018; 26(3): e360–e369.

23.

Cook

Tolliday

Ali

, et al. Exploratory study from an end-of-life research partnership network to improve access for ethnically diverse communities in one region. Health Soc Care Deliv Res 2024: 1–23.

24.

BLMK ICB. The Denny Review: a review of health inequalities in Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes. 2023.

25.

Public Health England. Health profile for Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes. 2021.

26.

Braun

Clarke

Thematic analysis: a practical guide. London: Sage, 2021.

27.

QSR International. NVivo 12. QSR International Pty Ltd., 2018.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB