Differences in treatment approach between ethnic groups

Abstract

Purpose

The mental health experience of people from ethnic minorities differs from that of the majority, including differential access to services and treatments. The 2014 National Health Service (NHS) Community Mental Health survey gathered data from 13,787 individuals in 57 NHS trusts in England, providing one means of monitoring such experience. The purpose of this paper is to analyse survey variables describing treatments offered to respondents for evidence of differential access or treatment experiences associated with ethnicity.

Design/methodology/approach

Secondary analysis of survey data. Proportions for target variables were modelled using multilevel logit models. Ethnic background, age and gender were entered as independent variables.

Findings

Respondents in most minority groups were more likely to be on the care programme approach (CPA) to provision than white British respondents and less likely to report receiving psychological treatments. Unmet need for psychological treatment was relatively high in certain Asian groups. Medication use was consistently high across respondents, but differences by ethnic background were evident.

Research limitations/implications

The study was dependent on existing survey data of a relatively limited nature, and potentially subject to non-response bias. The survey excludes users of certain types of service, giving an incomplete cross-section.

Originality/value

This represents a novel use of the data from the Community Mental Health survey, and complements evidence from a range of other sources. The findings mostly concur with other evidence but provide important new data in relation to medication, unmet needs in psychotherapy and use of the CPA. They remain suggestive of the complex nature of discrimination and/or unequal access and treatment in mental health services.

Citation

Sizmur, S. and McCulloch, A. (2016), "Differences in treatment approach between ethnic groups", Mental Health Review Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 73-84. https://doi.org/10.1108/MHRJ-05-2015-0016