Advancing mental health equality: a mapping review of interventions, economic evaluations and barriers and facilitators.

BACKGROUND: This work aimed to identify studies of interventions seeking to address mental health inequalities, studies assessing the economic impact of such interventions and factors which act as barriers and those that can facilitate interventions to address inequalities in mental health care. METHODS: A systematic mapping method was chosen. Studies were included if they: (1) focused on a population with: (a) mental health disorders, (b) protected or other characteristics putting them at risk of experiencing mental health inequalities; (2) addressed an intervention focused on addressing mental health inequalities; and (3) met criteria for one or more of three research questions: (i) primary research studies (any study design) or systematic reviews reporting effectiveness findings for an intervention or interventions, (ii) studies reporting economic evaluation findings, (iii) primary research studies (any study design) or systematic reviews identifying or describing, potential barriers or facilitators to interventions. A bibliographic search of MEDLINE, HMIC, ASSIA, Social Policy & Practice, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts and PsycINFO spanned January 2008 to December 2018. Study selection was performed according to inclusion criteria. Data were extracted and tabulated to map studies and summarise published research on mental health inequalities. A visual representation of the mapping review (a mapping diagram) is included. RESULTS: Overall, 128 studies met inclusion criteria: 115 primary studies and 13 systematic reviews. Of those, 94 looked at interventions, 6 at cost-effectiveness and 36 at barriers and facilitators. An existing taxonomy of disparities interventions was used and modified to categorise interventions by type and strategy. Most of the identified interventions focused on addressing socioeconomic factors, race disparities and age-related issues. The most frequently used intervention strategy was providing psychological support. Barriers and associated facilitators were categorised into groups including (not limited to) access to care, communication issues and financial constraints. CONCLUSIONS: The mapping review was useful in assessing the spread of literature and identifying highly researched areas versus prominent gaps. The findings are useful for clinicians, commissioners and service providers seeking to understand strategies to support the advancement of mental health equality for different populations and could be used to inform further research and support local decision-making. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Reasons behind the rising rate of involuntary admissions under the Mental Health Act (1983): Service use and cost impact.

There has been a significant rise in the use of the Mental Health Act (1983) in England over the last 10 years. This includes both health-based Place of Safety detentions and involuntary admissions to NHS mental health facilities. Although these trends should clearly inform the implementation of mental health care and legislation, there is currently little understanding of what caused these increased rates. We therefore sought to explore potential underlying reasons for the increase in involuntary admissions and Place of Safety detentions and to ascertain the associated service costs. We extracted publicly available data to ascertain the observed number of involuntary admissions (Section 2 or 3) and health-based Place of Safety detentions in England between 1999/2000 and 2015/2016. A simple regression analysis then enabled us to compare observed admission rates with predicted rates, between 2008/2009 and 2015/2016. This prediction model was based on observed figures before 2008. We then generated a costing model for these rates and compared admission costs to alternative interventions. Finally, we added relevant covariates to the prediction model, to explore potential relationships with observed rates. Since 2008/2009, there has been a marked increase in the number of involuntary admissions (38%) and Place of Safety detentions (617%). The analysis revealed that for involuntary admissions, the period of greatest increase occurred after 2012, two years after austerity measures were implemented. For Place of Safety detentions, substantial rises were seen from 2008/2009 to 2015/2016, coinciding with the economic recession. The rise in Place of Safety detentions may have been worsened by a reduction in mental health bed availability. During the study period, involuntary admissions are estimated to have cost the English NHS £6.8 billion; with a further £120 million spent on Place of Safety detentions. This is approximately £597 million greater than predicted, had involuntary admissions continued to change at pre-2008 rates. We conclude that the rise in involuntary admissions, and to a lesser extent Place of Safety detentions, were associated with three specific impactful events: the economic recession, legislative changes and the impact of austerity measures on health and social care services. In addition to the extensive arguments presented elsewhere, there is also an urgent economic case for addressing this trend.

Ethnic variations in compulsory detention under the Mental Health Act: a systematic review and meta-analysis of international data.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) groups have an increased risk of involuntary psychiatric care. However, to our knowledge, there is no published meta-analysis that brings together both international and UK literature and allows for comparison of the two. This study examined compulsory detention in BAME and migrant groups in the UK and internationally, and aimed to expand upon existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the rates of detention for BAME populations. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched five databases (PsychINFO, MEDLINE, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Embase, and CINAHL) for quantitative studies comparing involuntary admission, readmission, and inpatient bed days between BAME or migrant groups and majority or native groups, published between inception and Dec 3, 2018. We extracted data on study characteristics, patient-level data on diagnosis, age, sex, ethnicity, marital status, and occupational status, and our outcomes of interest (involuntary admission to hospital, readmission to hospital, and inpatient bed days) for meta-analysis. We used a random-effects model to compare disparate outcome measures. We assessed explanations offered for the differences between minority and majority groups for the strength of the evidence supporting them. This study is prospectively registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017078137. FINDINGS: Our search identified 9511 studies for title and abstract screening, from which we identified 296 potentially relevant full-text articles. Of these, 67 met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed in depth. We added four studies after reference and citation searches, meaning 71 studies in total were included. 1 953 135 participants were included in the studies. Black Caribbean patients were significantly more likely to be compulsorily admitted to hospital compared with those in white ethnic groups (odds ratio 2·53, 95% CI 2·03-3·16, p<0·0001). Black African patients also had significantly increased odds of being compulsorily admitted to hospital compared with white ethnic groups (2·27, 1·62-3·19, p<0·0001), as did, to a lesser extent, south Asian patients (1·33, 1·07-1·65, p=0·0091). Black Caribbean patients were also significantly more likely to be readmitted to hospital compared with white ethnic groups (2·30, 1·22-4·34, p=0·0102). Migrant groups were significantly more likely to be compulsorily admitted to hospital compared with native groups (1·50, 1·21-1·87, p=0·0003). The most common explanations for the increased risk of detainment in BAME populations included increased prevalence of psychosis, increased perceived risk of violence, increased police contact, absence of or mistrust of general practitioners, and ethnic disadvantages. INTERPRETATION: BAME and migrant groups are at a greater risk of psychiatric detention than are majority groups, although there is variation across ethnic groups. Attempts to explain increased detention in ethnic groups should avoid amalgamation and instead carry out culturally-specific, hypothesis-driven studies to examine the numerous contributors to varying rates of detention. FUNDING: University College London Hospitals National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, King's College London, and NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care North Thames at Bart's Health NHS Trust.