Outstanding Early Career Researchers award 2026: Meet the winners – Dr Veline L’Esperance

What is your main area of research, and what do you find is the most interesting aspect of your work?

My research sits at the intersection of primary care and health economics, with a specific focus on reducing health inequalities, particularly for Black and minoritised communities. A large part of my work right now centres on the Black Health Legacy study, a Wellcome Trust-funded programme that I co-lead, which aims to become the UK's largest community-based health research programme for Black, Black African and Caribbean people. At its heart, it is about correcting a profound injustice: that the communities who have historically been most excluded from research are the same communities bearing the greatest burden of preventable disease.

What I find most compelling is the moment when clinical reality and economic evidence come together to expose a systemic harm. Our research recently found that 1 in 7 Black men carry a G6PD deficiency variant that causes a key diabetes test, HbA1c, to underestimate blood sugar levels, leading to an average four-year delay in Type 2 Diabetes diagnosis and significantly higher rates of serious complications. This isn't a marginal finding. It is a concrete, measurable harm built into the diagnostic tools clinicians rely on every single day, and it exists in part because Black communities have been so underrepresented in the genomic studies that shaped those tools. The more we increase that representation, the more of these variants we will find, and the more lives we can protect. The fact that I can approach this both as a GP who sees patients and as a health economist who can model the downstream cost of that harm means I can pursue it from different angles simultaneously. That dual lens is what makes this work feel genuinely urgent to me.

What are some of the challenges you’ve faced as a researcher, and how did you overcome them?

The most persistent challenge has been working across two worlds that do not always speak to each other: clinical practice and academic research, while also trying to centre communities that have historically been excluded from both. Research pipelines are often designed with ease of recruitment in mind, which tends to mean recruiting people who are already well-engaged with the health system. The communities I work with most closely are often those who have entirely understandable reasons to be sceptical of research institutions, and that scepticism deserves to be taken seriously.

We overcame this in the Black Health Legacy study by building meaningful partnerships with faith groups, local authorities, and grassroots organisations, and embedding research in spaces where people already feel safe and heard. The pace and depth of recruitment we have achieved is only possible when trust has been built in advance, and when the research is genuinely designed with communities rather than simply for them. That distinction matters enormously.

On a personal level, combining an active GP caseload with a national research portfolio is a constant balancing act. What keeps it sustainable is never losing sight of why the work matters, and being surrounded by an excellent team that shares that motivation.

What will the RCGP/SAPC Early Career Award enable you to do?

I am very grateful for this award and will use it towards two connected goals: a professional development visit to collaborate with leading experts in the economics of genomics and precision medicine, and a priority setting workshop to establish the most pressing health economic research questions in genomic equity.

The visit bridges my dual roles as a GP and health economist at a critical moment. As the UK moves towards a more preventative, genomics-driven model of healthcare, I want to ensure that shift is both scientifically sound and economically viable for general practice, and that it reduces inequalities rather than entrenching them. The collaboration will focus on developing econometric models that can quantify the real cost of diagnostic delays caused by genetic variants like G6PD, the kind we have already identified in Black men with type 2 diabetes. By building a rigorous economic evidence base around these harms, we can make a compelling case to policymakers and commissioners that equitable diagnostics are not just the right thing to do, but the economically rational thing to do.

The priority setting workshop will bring together clinical, academic and community voices to define where the health economic evidence gaps are most acute, ensuring that the analytical frameworks we develop are grounded in what matters most to the communities affected. We would need to apply for further funding to take this work to scale, but this award will be crucial in establishing the right collaborations and shaping the research agenda. Ultimately, I want this work to demonstrate that academic primary care must be at the centre of the UK's genomic medicine strategy.

What advice do you have for people who want to work in primary care research?

Find the question that genuinely motivates you as a clinician, and follow it. The best primary care research comes from the consulting room, from those moments where you sense that something in the system is not working, or that a particular group of patients is being failed, and you feel compelled to understand why. That clinical instinct is not a distraction from research. It is its foundation.

I would also encourage early career researchers not to feel they have to choose between clinical practice and academia too soon. The dual identity can feel uncomfortable, but it is also where your most distinctive contribution lies. Funders, policymakers and research committees need people who can speak both languages fluently, and those people are far rarer than you might think.

Finally, invest in relationships early: with communities, with colleagues across disciplines, and with the people your research is ultimately trying to help. Research built on genuine partnership is more rigorous, more impactful and far more likely to reach those who need it most. That is not just good ethics. It is good science.