Skip to main content

Table 1 Previous meta-analyses on pathways to mental health care in the UK

From: Ethnic inequalities and pathways to care in psychosis in England: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study Ethnicity categories GP, n,
odds ratio (OR), 95% CI
Civil/forensic detention, n, odds ratio (OR), 95% CI Police or CJS, n,
odds ratio (OR), 95% CI
DUP AMSTAR quality
(max = 11)
Anderson et al. 2014 [6] White (reference)    Total = 7
(Medium quality)
Black Groups N = 5 studies, OR = 0.66
(95% CI = 0.53 to 0.82)
Police/CJS: N = 5 studies, OR = 2.14
(95% CI = 1.66 to 2.76)
Asian Groups N = 3 studies, OR = 1.24
(95% CI = 0.81 to 1.91)
Police/CJS: N = 3 studies, OR = 0.73
(95% CI = 0.34 to 1.57)
Bhui et al. 2003 [3] White (reference)     Total = 9
(High quality)
Black Civil: N = 12 studies, OR = 4.31
(95% CI = 3.33 to 5.58)
Singh et al. 2007 [5] White (reference)     Total = 6
(Medium quality)
Black Civil: N = 15 studies, OR = 4.48
(95% CI = 3.71 to 5.41)
Forensic: N = 2 studies, OR = 2.45
(95% CI = 1.57 to 3.82)
Asian   Civil: N = 4 studies, OR = 3.42
(95% CI = 2.31 to 5.07)
Singh et al. 2013 [4] Black vs. Non-Black N = 4 studies, OR = 0.50
(95% CI = 0.35 to 0.71)
Civil: N = 6 studies, OR = 2.33
(95% CI = 1.85 to 2.93)
Police/CJS: N = 4 studies, OR = 2.25
(95% CI = 1.74 to 2.92)
  Total = 5
(Medium quality)
Black Caribbean vs. White British Civil: N = 2 studies, OR = 2.88
(95% CI = 1.84 to 4.51)
Asian vs. broadly defined White Civil: N = 2 studies, OR = 0.59
(95% CI = 0.25 to 1.39)