Skip to main content

Table 2 Overview and quality of included primary studies (used in meta-analyses)

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

Study Ethnicity measure Ethnicity categories (including n) Relevant outcomes Main findings (ethnic minority vs. White ref.) Quality* (max = 11)
Ajnakina et al. [57] Census WB (62), BA (63), BC (50) CA (civil), police Higher CA and police in BA and BC 7 (moderate)
Bebbington et al. [24] N/A W (190), BC (49) CA (civil) Higher CA in BC 4 (moderate)
Banerjee et al. [23] N/A WE (804), BC (375), O (50) CA (forensic) Higher CA in BC 2 (low)
Bhui et al. [25] Place of birth, census W (184), BA (16), BB(12), BC (26), A/0 (18) CA (forensic) Higher CA in BA and BB 8 (high)
Bhui et al. [58] Self-report W (177), B (160), SA (114), O (29) GP, CJS, DUP Higher CJS in BA and BC, non-significant GP and DUP (including SA) 9 (high)
Bhui et al. [59] Census WB (23), WO (14), BA (28), BC (31), BO (1), Bd (4), In (4), P (3), O (14) CJS Higher CJS in BA and BC 9 (high)
Birchwood et al. [26] Third party WB (74), BC (50), A (30), Ir (5), O (10) CA (civil), police Non-significant CA and police (BC and A) 5 (moderate)
Brunet [19] Third party W (16), B (36), A (28), O (8) GP, CA (civil), DUP Shorter DUP, non-significant GP and CA (B and A) 2 (low)
Burnett et al. [27] Place of birth W (38), BC (38), A (24) GP, CA (mixed), police/CJS Non-significant GP, CA and police/CJS (B and A) 6 (moderate)
Callan [28] Place of birth WB (169), BC (200) GP, CA (civil), police Higher CA and police in B, non-significant for GP 7 (moderate)
Cole et al. [29] Self-report, census W (39), B (38), A/O (16) GP, CA (civil), police Non-significant GP, CA and police (B and A/O) 6 (moderate)
Commander et al. 1999 [30] Self-report, census W (40), B (40), A (40) GP, CA (civil), police Higher CA and police (B and A), GP higher in A, non-significant for B 4 (moderate)
Crowley and Simmons [31] Third party W (75), BC (49), A (28) CA (civil) Higher CA in BC, non-significant for A 3 (low)
Davies et al. [32] Place of birth, census WB (207), WO (36), BA (27), BC (112), O (15) CA (mixed) Higher CA (BA and BC), non-significant in WO 8 (high)
Drake et al. [33] Self-report W (216), BC (19), O (13) DUP Non-significant DUP for BC 6 (moderate)
Gajwani et al. [60] Self-report W (437), BA (62), BC (120), Bd (16), In (47), P (125) CA (mixed) Non-significant CA in ethnic minority (including Black) groups 9 (high)
Ghali et al. [61] Census WB (183), WO (103), BA (136), BB (152), BC (27), SA (80) GP, CJS, DUP Higher CJS in BA only, shorter DUP for Black groups and SA, GP non-significant 11 (high)
Goater et al. [34] Self-report, census W (68), B (71), O (15) CA (mixed) Higher CA in B after 5 years (non-significant after only 1 year) 6 (moderate)
Harrison et al. [35] N/A Non-BC (89), BC (42) GP, CA (civil), police Higher CA and police in BC, GP non-significant 4 (moderate)
Ineichen et al. [36] Third party WB (193), WO (9), BC (43), O (19) CA (civil) Higher CA in BC, non-significant for WO 4 (moderate)
Johnson et al. [37] N/A W (173), BA (15), BC (70), O (14) CA (civil) Higher CA in BC, non-significant for BA 5 (moderate)
Koffman et al. [38] Third party W (2,978), B (631), A (160) CA (civil) Higher CA in B and A 5 (moderate)
Lawlor et al. [62] Census WB (146), WO (45), BA (41), BC (26), BO (29) GP, CA (civil), police/CJS Higher CA and police/CJS (Black groups and WO), lower GP (Black groups) non-significant GP (WO) 10 (high)
Lloyd and Moodley [39] Third party W (101), B (37) CA (civil) Higher CA in B 5 (moderate)
Mann et al. [63] Self-report, census WB (158), WO (93), BA (188), BB (55), BC (78), mixed B/W (36), SA (37), A (O)(29) GP, CA (civil), CJS Particularly high point estimate for CA in BA, less marked for other groups and outcomes, or non-significant 9 (high)
McKenzie et al. [40] Place of birth WB (58), BC (53) CA (civil), CJS Higher CA and CJS in BC 8 (high)
Moodley and Perkins [41] N/A W (25), BC (22) CA (civil) Higher CA in BC 2 (low)
Moodley and Thornicroft [42] Third party W (295), BC (47) CA (civil), police Higher CA and police in BC 3 (low)
Morgan et al. [43] Self-report WB (237), WO (33), BA (64), BC (128) GP, CA (civil), CJS Higher CA, CJS, lower GP (BA and BC), non-significant CA, CJS and GP (WO vs. WB) 9 (high)
Morgan et al. [44] Self-report WB (217), BC (129), BA (68) DUP Shorter (BA) and non-significant (BC) DUP 8 (high)
Morgan et al. 2017 [64] Self-report, census WB (159), BA (44), BC (107) CA (civil), police Higher CA and police (BA and BC) 8 (high)
Owens et al. [45] Third party Non-BC (155), BC (120) CA (civil), police Higher CA and police in BC 4 (moderate)
Parkman et al. [46] Place of birth, census WB (94), WO (17), BC (42) CA (mixed) Higher CA in BC, non-significant in WO vs. WB 7 (moderate)
Patrick et al. [47] N/A W (34), B (26) CA (civil) Higher CA in B 3 (low)
Singh et al. [48] Third party, census W (352), BC (44) CA (civil) Higher CA in BC 8 (high)
Singh et al. [66] Third party W (2,587), B (811), A (430), O (359) CA (civil) Higher CA in B, non-significant for A 7 (moderate)
Singh et al. [65] Self-report, census W (45), B (35), A (43) CA (civil), CJS, GP, DUP Higher CA and CJS (B), non-significant GP and DUP (B), non-significant CA, CJS, DUP (A) 7 (moderate)
Takei et al. [49] N/A W (49), BC (32) CA (civil) Higher CA in B 5 (moderate)
Thomas et al. [50] Third party W (1,265), BC (193), A (76) CA (civil), police Higher CA (BC and A), higher police (BC), non-significant police (A) 3 (low)
Weich et al. [67] N/A W (997,169), B (39,249), A (46,544), mixed (13,781), O (22,053) CA (civil) Higher CA in B and A 2 (low)
  1. Ethnicity categories: W White, WB White British, WO White Other, Ir Irish, B Black, BA Black African, BB Black British, BC Black Caribbean, BO Black Other, A Asian, SA South Asian, Bd Bangladeshi, In Indian, P Pakistani, O Other
  2. Relevant outcomes: CA compulsory admission (for civil, forensic or mixed (civil and forensic) detentions), CJS criminal justice system involvement, GP general practitioner involvement, DUP duration of untreated psychosis
  3. *The scoring system used to rate primary studies is replicated from Bhui et al. [3]. From a maximum of 11 points, primary studies that received a total of 0–3 points were ranked as ‘low’ quality, 4–7 points ‘moderate’ quality and 8–11 points ‘high’ quality. See Additional file 4 for the full breakdown of the score of each item of the quality assessment system for the respective studies