Intersectional Discrimination in Mental Health Care: A Systematic Review With Qualitative Evidence Synthesis.

OBJECTIVE: Discriminatory practices in mental health care undermine the right to health of marginalized service users. Intersectional approaches enable consideration of multiple forms of discrimination that occur simultaneously and remain invisible in single-axis analyses. The authors reviewed intersectionality-informed qualitative literature on discriminatory practices in mental health care to better understand the experiences of marginalized service users and their evaluation and navigation of mental health care. METHODS: The authors searched EBSCO, PubMed, MEDLINE, and JSTOR for studies published January 1, 1989-December 14, 2022. Qualitative and mixed-methods studies were eligible if they used an intersectional approach to examine discrimination (experiences, mechanisms, and coping strategies) in mental health care settings from the perspective of service users and providers. A qualitative evidence synthesis with thematic analysis was performed. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included in the qualitative evidence synthesis. These studies represented the experiences of 383 service users and 114 providers. Most studies considered the intersections of mental illness with race, sexual and gender diversity, or both and were performed in the United States or Canada. Four themes were identified: the relevance of social identity in mental health care settings, knowledge-related concerns in mental health care, microaggressions in clinical practice, and service users' responses to discriminatory practices. CONCLUSIONS: Discriminatory practices in mental health care lead to specific barriers to care for multiply marginalized service users. Universities and hospitals may improve care by building competencies in recognizing and preventing discrimination through institutionalized training.

Epistemic appropriation and the ethics of engaging with trans community knowledge in the context of mental healthcare research.

Mental healthcare research increasingly focuses the needs of trans people and, in doing so, acknowledges knowledge and epistemic resources developed in trans communities. In this article, we aim to raise awareness of an ethical issue described by Emmalon Davis that may arise in the context of engaging with community knowledge and epistemic resources: the risk of epistemic appropriation. It is composed of two harms (1) a detachment of epistemic resources developed in the originating community and (2) a misdirection of these epistemic resources for epistemic goals of a dominant community. In this article, we map and discuss the ethical concerns in using knowledge originating in trans communities in terms of epistemic appropriation in the context of mental healthcare research. We first argue that misgendering, failing to reference non-academic sources and a lack of attribution in community authorship are forms of epistemic detachment. Second, we problematize cases of epistemic misdirection of trans epistemic resources, focusing on the examples of detransition and transition regret. We discuss harms related to epistemic appropriation in relationship to risks to safety. The article aims to raise awareness about the risk of epistemic appropriation both in researchers engaging with trans knowledge as well as in mental healthcare workers who seek information on trans.

Intersectionality as a tool for clinical ethics consultation in mental healthcare.

Bioethics increasingly recognizes the impact of discriminatory practices based on social categories such as race, gender, sexual orientation or ability on clinical practice. Accordingly, major bioethics associations have stressed that identifying and countering structural discrimination in clinical ethics consultations is a professional obligation of clinical ethics consultants. Yet, it is still unclear how clinical ethics consultants can fulfill this obligation. More specifically, clinical ethics needs both theoretical tools to analyze and practical strategies to address structural discrimination within clinical ethics consultations. Intersectionality, a concept developed in Black feminist scholarship, is increasingly considered in bioethical theory. It stresses how social structures and practices determine social positions of privilege and disadvantage in multiple, mutually co-constitutive systems of oppression. This article aims to investigate how intersectionality can contribute to addressing structural discrimination in clinical ethics consultations with a particular focus on mental healthcare. To this end, we critically review existing approaches for clinical ethics consultants to address structural racism in clinical ethics consultations and extend them by intersectional considerations. We argue that intersectionality is a suitable tool to address structural discrimination within clinical ethics consultations and show that it can be practically implemented in two complementary ways: 1) as an analytic approach and 2) as a critical practice.

The ethics of coercion in mental healthcare: the role of structural racism.

In mental health ethics, it is generally assumed that coercive measures are sometimes justified when persons with mental illness endanger themselves or others. Coercive measures are regarded as ethically justified only when certain criteria are fulfilled: for example, the intervention must be proportional in relation to the potential harm. In this paper, we demonstrate shortcomings of this established ethical framework in cases where people with mental illness experience structural racism. By drawing on a case example from mental healthcare, we first demonstrate that biases in assessing whether the coercive intervention is proportional are likely, for example, due to an overestimation of dangerousness. We then show that even if proportionality is assessed correctly, and the specific coercive intervention would thus be regarded as ethically justified according to the standard framework, coercion may still be ethically problematic. This is because the standard framework does not consider how situations in which coercive measures are applied arise. If structural racism causally contributes to such situations, the use of coercion can compound the prior injustice of racist discrimination. We conclude that the ethical analysis of coercion in mental healthcare should consider the possibility of discriminatory biases and practices and systematically take the influence of structural discrimination into account.

Opportunities and challenges of self-binding directives: A comparison of empirical research with stakeholders in three European countries.

BACKGROUND: Self-binding directives (SBDs) are psychiatric advance directives that include a clause in which mental health service users consent in advance to involuntary hospital admission and treatment under specified conditions. Medical ethicists and legal scholars identified various potential benefits of SBDs but have also raised ethical concerns. Until recently, little was known about the views of stakeholders on the opportunities and challenges of SBDs. AIMS: This article aims to foster an international exchange on SBDs by comparing recent empirical findings on stakeholders' views on the opportunities and challenges of SBDs from Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. METHOD: Comparisons between the empirical findings were drawn using a structured expert consensus process. RESULTS: Findings converged on many points. Perceived opportunities of SBDs include promotion of autonomy, avoidance of personally defined harms, early intervention, reduction of admission duration, improvement of the therapeutic relationship, involvement of persons of trust, avoidance of involuntary hospital admission, addressing trauma, destigmatization of involuntary treatment, increase of professionals' confidence, and relief for proxy decision-makers. Perceived challenges include lack of awareness and knowledge, lack of support, undue influence, inaccessibility during crisis, lack of cross-agency coordination, problems of interpretation, difficulties in capacity assessment, restricted therapeutic flexibility, scarce resources, disappointment due to noncompliance, and outdated content. Stakeholders tended to focus on practical challenges and did not often raise fundamental ethical concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders tend to see the implementation of SBDs as ethically desirable, provided that the associated challenges are addressed.

Situational vulnerability within mental healthcare - a qualitative analysis of ethical challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Mental healthcare users and patients were described as a particularly vulnerable group in the debate on the burdens of the COVID-19 pandemic. Just what this means and what normative conclusions can be derived from it depend to a large extent on the underlying concept of vulnerability. While a traditional understanding locates vulnerability in the characteristics of social groups, a situational and dynamic approach considers how social structures produce vulnerable social positions. The situation of users and patients in different psychosocial settings during the COVID-19 pandemic has not yet been comprehensively considered and ethically analyzed under the aspect of situational vulnerability. METHODS: We present the results of a retrospective qualitative analysis of a survey of ethical challenges in different mental healthcare facilities of a large regional mental healthcare provider in Germany. We evaluate them ethically using a dynamic and situational understanding of vulnerability. RESULTS: Difficulties in implementing infection prevention measures, restrictions of mental health services in favor of infection prevention, social isolation, negative health effects on mental healthcare users and patients, and challenges in implementing regulations on state and provider levels within the local specificities emerged across different mental healthcare settings as ethically salient topics. CONCLUSIONS: Applying a situational and dynamic understanding of vulnerability allows the identification of specific factors and conditions that have contributed to an increased context-dependent vulnerability for mental healthcare users and patients. These factors and conditions should be considered on the level of state and local regulations to reduce and address vulnerability.

[Feminist perspectives in German-language medical ethics: a review and three hypotheses]. / Feministische Perspektiven in der deutschsprachigen Medizinethik: eine Bestandsaufnahme und drei Thesen.

Definition of the problem: Feminist approaches to medical ethics are well established in international discourses. By contrast, in the German-speaking medical ethical discourse, they still seem to be rather marginal. In this article, we analyze which feminist perspectives are prominent in German medical ethics and suggest new approaches. Arguments: We present our results from a systematized review of the literature, in which we identify existing feminist approaches within the German-speaking medical ethics discourse as well as research gaps. Based on the review, our preliminary research and discussions in the working group "Feminist perspectives in bio and medical ethics", we defend three hypotheses aimed at advancing the German feminist medical ethical discourse. We posit that (1) feminist medical ethics aim at (epistemic) justice, (2) feminist medical ethics are critical and context-sensitive, and (3) intersectional and postcolonial approaches within feminist medical ethics may contribute to epistemically just, critical, and context-sensitive medical ethics. Conclusion: We argue that feminist perspectives should be implemented as a fundamental perspective in medical ethics because they can bring together key dimensions such as epistemically just, critical, context-sensitive, intersectional, and postcolonial thinking.

[Testimonial injustice against people with mental disorders in health care. A conceptual and ethical analysis]. / Testimoniale Ungerechtigkeit gegenüber Menschen mit psychischer Erkrankung in der Gesundheitsversorgung. Eine konzeptionelle und ethische Analyse.

Definition of the problem: Statistically, people with mental disorders die prematurely due to preventable and treatable somatic illness. We analyze testimonial injustice as one mechanism which contributes to poor quality of health care for people with mental disorders. Argument: Practices in somatic health care are structured by ableist networks of social meaning. This leads to a systemic downgrading of the epistemic capacities of people with mental disorders and to a disproportionate focus on psychic disability and mental disorder in diagnostic processes. As a consequence, people with mental disorders are at high risk of suffering testimonial injustice in somatic health care. Testimonial injustice refers to the unjustified downgrading of a speaker's credibility based on a prejudice against their social identity. Testimonial injustice has important epistemic and ethical implications. It can lead to medical errors with serious health consequences for those affected. It can also lead to a loss of trust in the health system by people with mental disorders. Conclusion: Testimonial injustice against people with mental disorders reproduces structural discrimination and is ethically problematic. Practices of somatic health care need to be improved to reduce discrimination.

Long-term efficacy of Metacognitive Training for Depression (D-MCT): A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The availability of treatment for depression needs to be improved. Among the barriers are the dearth of group programmes and the high demand of many programmes with regard to staff expertise. The Metacognitive Training for Depression (D-MCT) is a new, easy-to-administer, cognitive behaviour-based group intervention. In a previous 6-month trial, D-MCT was highly accepted by patients and efficacious compared to a control treatment. The aim of the current study was to examine whether the effects of the D-MCT can be sustained over 3.5 years. DESIGN: Long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: A total of 84 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of unipolar depressive disorder were enrolled in a randomized, controlled, assessor-blind, parallel group trial comparing two interventions added to usual care: D-MCT and general health training (HT). Patients were reassessed 3.5 years after the interventions were terminated. Primary outcome was the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Self-assessed depressive symptom severity (BDI), dysfunctional cognitive (DAS) and metacognitive (MCQ) beliefs, self-esteem (RSE), and quality of life (WHOQOL-BREF) served as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Primary intention-to-treat analyses using analysis of covariance showed negative results, and only secondary post-hoc analyses utilizing latent growth modelling demonstrated superiority of D-MCT over HT with regard to the long-term course of depressive symptom severity and cognitive and metacognitive outcomes as well as physical and psychological quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that D-MCT may be a promising add-on treatment for unipolar depression that should be investigated in large multi-centre studies. Independent replications are needed. PRACTITIONER POINTS: Clinical implications: The current study shows tentative evidence that positive effects of the D-MCT reported at the 6-month follow-up assessment were sustained over 3.5 years. Potential positive effects regard severity of depression, dysfunctional cognitive, and metacognitive beliefs as well as quality of life. If positive results are replicated with less trained therapists, D-MCT offers the possibility of providing a simple and easy-to-administer CBT-based group treatment for depression with long lasting effects. LIMITATIONS: Sample size was small; a large-scale multi-centre trial would be desirable to gain high statistical power with an adequate sample size and to allow the investigation of possible allegiance effects. D-MCT was delivered as an add-on intervention and not as a stand-alone intervention.

Course and stability of cognitive and metacognitive beliefs in depression.

Maladaptive cognitive beliefs as measured by the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale (DAS) increase vulnerability to depression. Maladaptive metacognitive beliefs as measured by the Metacognitive Questionnaire-30 (MCQ-30) are also thought to contribute to depression. However, the long-term stability of metacognitive beliefs in depression has not yet been investigated. It is unclear whether metacognitive beliefs can add explanatory power to depression above and beyond maladaptive cognitive beliefs. The aim of the present study was to investigate the role and stability of cognitive and metacognitive maladaptive beliefs in depression. Eighty-four patients with depression were assessed with the DAS, three subscales of the MCQ-30 (positive metacognitive beliefs about worry and rumination [PB]; negative metacognitive beliefs about the uncontrollability of rumination [NB]; metacognitive beliefs concerning the need to control one's thoughts [NFC]), the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, and the Beck Depression Inventory at baseline and were reassessed 3.5 years later. Analyses using a longitudinal latent growth model showed that change on the DAS and baseline scores and change on the MCQ-30 (NB and NFC) significantly predicted change in self-rated depressive symptoms over 3.5 years. However, the DAS explained more additional variance than the integration of the MCQ-30 subscales. Subscales of the MCQ-30 were more stable than the DAS. Although cognitive and metacognitive maladaptive beliefs were both predictors of depression, the DAS was a better predictor than the MCQ-30 subscales. Nevertheless, because maladaptive metacognitive beliefs were more stable than maladaptive cognitive beliefs, they should be considered an important underlying vulnerability factor for depression.