Abstract
Background There is some evidence of inequitable psychosis care provision by ethnicity. We investigated variations in the receipt of CBTp and family intervention across ethnic groups in Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) teams throughout England, where national policy mandates offering these interventions to all.
Methods We included data on 29,610 service users from the National Clinical Audit of Psychosis (NCAP), collected between 2018 and 2021. We conducted mixed effects logistic regression to examine odds ratios of receiving an intervention (CBTp, family intervention, or either intervention) across 17 ethnic groups while accounting for the effect of years and variance between teams and adjusting for individual- (age, gender, occupational status) and team-level covariates (care-coordinator caseload and mental health inequalities strategies).
Findings Compared with White British people, every minoritized ethnic group, except those of mixed Asian-White and mixed Black African-White ethnicities, had lower adjusted odds of receiving CBTp (aOR 0·39, 95%CI 0·32-0·47 to 0·80, 0·64-1·00). People of Black African (0·61, 0·53-0·69), Black Caribbean (0·67, 0·56-0·81), non-African/Caribbean Black (0·63, 0·51-0·79), non-British/Irish White (0·73, 0·64-0·84), and of “any other” (0·66, 0·54-0·81) ethnicity also experienced lower adjusted odds of receiving family intervention.
Interpretation Pervasive inequalities in receiving CBTp for first episode psychosis exist for almost all minoritized ethnic groups, and family intervention for many groups. Investigating how these inequalities arise should be a research priority, allowing co-produced development and testing of approaches to address them.
Funding Independent research commissioned and funded by the National Institute for Health Research Policy Research Programme.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This paper presents independent research commissioned and funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme, conducted by the NIHR Policy Research Unit (PRU) in Mental Health (grant no. PR-PRU-0916-22003). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the Department of Health and Social Care or its arm's length bodies, or other government departments.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The University College London research ethics committee gave ethical approval for this work. We used anonymised datasets of the National Clinical Audit of Pyschosis that were obtained after approval of our application by the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data employed in this study are from the NCAP reports and cannot be shared by authors due privacy or ethical restrictions.
