Dataset Information

Ethnic variations in compulsory detention under the Mental Health Act: a systematic review and meta-analysis of international data.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Evidence suggests that black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) groups have an increased risk of involuntary psychiatric care. However, to our knowledge, there is no published meta-analysis that brings together both international and UK literature and allows for comparison of the two. This study examined compulsory detention in BAME and migrant groups in the UK and internationally, and aimed to expand upon existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the rates of detention for BAME populations.

Methods

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched five databases (PsychINFO, MEDLINE, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Embase, and CINAHL) for quantitative studies comparing involuntary admission, readmission, and inpatient bed days between BAME or migrant groups and majority or native groups, published between inception and Dec 3, 2018. We extracted data on study characteristics, patient-level data on diagnosis, age, sex, ethnicity, marital status, and occupational status, and our outcomes of interest (involuntary admission to hospital, readmission to hospital, and inpatient bed days) for meta-analysis. We used a random-effects model to compare disparate outcome measures. We assessed explanations offered for the differences between minority and majority groups for the strength of the evidence supporting them. This study is prospectively registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017078137.

Findings

Our search identified 9511 studies for title and abstract screening, from which we identified 296 potentially relevant full-text articles. Of these, 67 met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed in depth. We added four studies after reference and citation searches, meaning 71 studies in total were included. 1 953 135 participants were included in the studies. Black Caribbean patients were significantly more likely to be compulsorily admitted to hospital compared with those in white ethnic groups (odds ratio 2·53, 95% CI 2·03-3·16, p<0·0001). Black African patients also had significantly increased odds of being compulsorily admitted to hospital compared with white ethnic groups (2·27, 1·62-3·19, p<0·0001), as did, to a lesser extent, south Asian patients (1·33, 1·07-1·65, p=0·0091). Black Caribbean patients were also significantly more likely to be readmitted to hospital compared with white ethnic groups (2·30, 1·22-4·34, p=0·0102). Migrant groups were significantly more likely to be compulsorily admitted to hospital compared with native groups (1·50, 1·21-1·87, p=0·0003). The most common explanations for the increased risk of detainment in BAME populations included increased prevalence of psychosis, increased perceived risk of violence, increased police contact, absence of or mistrust of general practitioners, and ethnic disadvantages.

Interpretation

BAME and migrant groups are at a greater risk of psychiatric detention than are majority groups, although there is variation across ethnic groups. Attempts to explain increased detention in ethnic groups should avoid amalgamation and instead carry out culturally-specific, hypothesis-driven studies to examine the numerous contributors to varying rates of detention.

Funding

University College London Hospitals National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, King's College London, and NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care North Thames at Bart's Health NHS Trust.

SUBMITTER: Barnett P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6494977 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe relationship between ethnicity and adolescent mental health was investigated using cross-sectional data from the nationally representative UK Millennium Cohort Study.MethodsParental Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire reports identified mental health problems in 10,357 young people aged 14 (n = 2042 from ethnic minority backgrounds: Mixed n = 492, Indian n = 275, Pakistani n = 496, Bangladeshi n = 221, Black Caribbean n = 102, Black African n = 187, Other Ethnic Group n = 269). Univariable logistic regression models investigated associations between each factor and outcome; a bivariable model investigated whether household income explained differences by ethnicity, and a multivariable model additionally adjusted for factors of social support (self-assessed support, parental relationship), participation (socialising, organised activities, religious attendance), and adversity (bullying, victimisation, substance use). Results were stratified by sex as evidence of a sex/ethnicity interaction was found (P = 0.0002).ResultsThere were lower unadjusted odds for mental health problems in boys from Black African (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04-0.61) and Indian backgrounds (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21-0.86) compared to White peers. After adjustment for income, odds were lower in boys from Black African (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.38), Indian (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.21-0.77), and Pakistani (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.27-0.89) backgrounds, and girls from Bangladeshi (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05-0.65) and Pakistani (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41-0.99) backgrounds. After further adjustment for social support, participation, and adversity factors, only boys from a Black African background had lower odds (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.03-0.71) of mental health problems.ConclusionsHousehold income confounded lower prevalence of mental health problems in some young people from Pakistani and Bangladeshi backgrounds; findings suggest ethnic differences are partly but not fully accounted for by income, social support, participation, and adversity. Addressing income inequalities and socially focused interventions may protect against mental health problems irrespective of ethnicity.

Project description:BackgroundThe number of asylum seekers, refugees and internally displaced people worldwide has increased dramatically over the past 5 years. Many countries are continuing to resort to detaining asylum seekers and other migrants, despite concerns that this may be harmful. In light of the considerable body of recent research, this review aims to update and expand on a 2009 systematic review on the mental health consequences of detention on adult, adolescent and child immigration detainees, which found (on the basis on 9 studies) that there was consistent evidence that immigration detention had adverse effects on mental health.MethodsThree databases were searched using key terms relating to immigration detention and mental health. Electronic searches were supplemented by reference screening. Studies were included if they were quantitative, included individuals detained for immigration purposes, reported on mental health problems and were published in peer-reviewed journals. Two reviewers independently screened papers for eligibility, and a further two reviewers completed quality appraisals for included studies.ResultsTwenty- six studies (21 of which were not included in the 2009 review) reporting on a total of 2099 participants were included in the review. Overall, these studies indicated that adults, adolescents and children experienced high levels of mental health problems. Anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder were most commonly reported both during and following detention. Higher symptom scores were found in detained compared to non-detained refugees. In addition (and more clearly than was evident in 2009), detention duration was positively associated with severity of mental symptoms. Greater trauma exposure prior to detention was also associated with symptom severity.ConclusionsThe literature base reviewed in this paper consistently demonstrated severe mental health consequences amongst detainees across a wide range of settings and jurisdictions. There is a pressing need for the proper consideration of mental health and consequent risk of detention-related harm in decisions surrounding detention as well as for improved care for individuals within detention facilities. Recommendations based on these findings are presented, including increased focus on the identification of vulnerability and on minimising the duration of detention.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence regarding the presence and persistence of ethnic inequalities in mental healthcare is well established. The reasons for these inequalities and lack of progress in diminishing them are less understood. This meta-ethnography aims to provide a new conceptual understanding of how ethnic inequalities are created and sustained; this is essential to develop effective interventions. Specifically, we sought to understand why people from ethnic minority groups are underrepresented in primary care mental health service provision and overrepresented in crisis pathways and detention.Methods and findingsFollowing eMERGe guidelines for meta-ethnographies, we searched OpenGrey, Kings Fund, CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO, and Social Care Online databases for qualitative articles published from database inception until October 2, 2022, using broad categories of search terms relating to "ethnicity AND (mental illness/mental health/emotional distress) AND (help-seeking/service utilisation/experience/perception/view)." We included all conceptually rich articles that used qualitative methods of data collection and analysis and excluded non-UK studies and those that focused solely on causation of mental illness. Our patient, public, and practitioner lived experience advisory group provided feedback and input on key stages of the project including search terms, research questions, data analysis, and dissemination. A total of 14,142 articles were identified; 66 met the inclusion criteria. We used reciprocal, refutational, and line of argument analytical approaches to identify convergence and divergence between studies. The synthesis showed that current models of statutory mental healthcare are experienced as a major barrier to the delivery of person-centred care to those in ethnic minority groups due to the perceived dominance of monocultural and reductionist frameworks of assessment and treatment (described as "medical" and "Eurocentric") and direct experiences of racist practice. The lack of socially oriented and holistic frameworks of knowledge and understanding in medical training and services is experienced as epistemic injustice, particularly among those who attribute their mental illness to experiences of migration, systemic racism, and complex trauma. Fear of harm, concerns about treatment suitability, and negative experiences with health providers such as racist care and medical neglect/injury contribute to avoidance of, and disengagement from, mainstream healthcare. The lack of progress in tackling ethnic inequalities is attributed to failures in coproduction and insufficient adoption of existing recommendations within services. Study limitations include insufficient recording of participant characteristics relating to generational status and social class in primary studies, which prevented exploration of these intersections.ConclusionsIn this study, we found that the delivery of safe and equitable person-centred care requires a model of mental health that is responsive to the lived experiences of people in ethnic minority groups. For the people considered in this review, this requires better alignment of mental health services with social and anti-racist models of care. Our findings suggest that intersections related to experiences of racism, migration, religion, and complex trauma might be more relevant than crude ethnic group classifications. Strategies to tackle ethnic inequalities in mental healthcare require an evaluation of individual, systemic, and structural obstacles to authentic and meaningful coproduction and implementation of existing community recommendations in services.