Individual, interpersonal, and organisational factors associated with discrimination in medical decisions affecting people with a migration background with mental health problems: the case of general practice.

OBJECTIVES: Although people with a migration background (MB) have more unmet mental health needs than the general population, patients with a MB are still underrepresented in mental health care services. Provider bias towards these patients has been evidenced repeatedly but its driving factors remain elusive. We assessed the moderating effect of the individual (e.g. age and ethnicity), interpersonal (e.g. healthcare provider trust), and organisational (e.g. perceived workload) factors on general practitioners (GPs) differential decision-making regarding diagnosis, treatment, and referral for a depressed patient with or without a MB. DESIGN: An experimental study was carried out in which GPs were shown one of two video vignettes featuring adult male depressed patients, one with a MB and the other without. Belgian GPs (n = 797, response rate was 13%) had to decide on their diagnosis, treatment, and referral. Analysis of variance and logistic regression were used to analyse the effect of a MB, adding interaction terms for the explanatory variables. RESULTS: Overall, we found that there were ethnic differences in GPs' decisions regarding diagnosis and treatment recommendations. GPs perceived the symptoms of the patient with a MB as less severe (F = 7.68, p < 0.01) and demonstrated a reduced likelihood to prescribe a combination of medical and non-medical treatments (F = 11.55, p < 0.001). Those differences increased in accordance with the GP's age and perceived workload; at an interpersonal level, we found that differences increased when the GP thought the patient was exaggerating his distress. CONCLUSION: This paper showed that lower levels of trust among GPs' towards their migrant patients and high GP workloads contribute to an increased ethnic bias in medical decision-making. This may perpetuate ethnic inequalities in mental health care. Future researchers should develop an intervention to decrease the ethnic inequities in mental health care by addressing GPs' trust in their migrant and ethnic minority patients.

Unintentional Discrimination Against Patients with a Migration Background by General Practitioners in Mental Health Management: An Experimental Study.

Populations with a migration background have a higher prevalence of mental health problems than their native counterparts. They are also more likely to have unmet medical needs and are less frequently referred to mental health services. One potential explanation for this is that physicians, such as general practitioners (GPs), may unintentionally discriminate against migrant patients, particularly when they lack humanization. To date, no experimental study has investigated this hypothesis. This paper assesses the influence of humanization on GPs' discriminatory decisions regarding migrant patients with depression. A balanced 2 × 2 factorial experiment was carried out with Belgian GPs (N = 797) who received video-vignettes depicting either a native patient or a migrant patient with depression. Half of the respondents were exposed to a text that humanized the patient by providing more details about the patient's life story. Decisions related to diagnosis, treatment and referral were collected, as well as the time spent on each video and text, and were analysed using ANOVA. Migrant patients' symptoms were judged to be less severe than those of native patients (F = 7.71, p < 0.05). For almost all treatments, the decision was less favourable for the migrant patient. Humanization had little effect on medical decisions. We observed that GPs spent significantly more time on the vignette with the humanization intervention, especially for the migrant patients. The results indicate that ethnic differences in the management of depression persist in primary care. Humanization, however, does not mitigate those differences in medical decisions.

'Through a kaleidoscope': A Foucauldian discourse analysis of Belgian policy regarding patients with a migration background and depression in general practices.

A higher prevalence of depression is found among patients with a migration background within the Belgian population. Nevertheless, this group is underrepresented in ambulant and residential mental health care services. Since general practitioners (GPs) have a crucial gatekeeping role, this led some researchers to investigate the possibility of a provider bias influencing GPs' assessment and referral of depressed patients with a migration background. However, GPs' accounts may be influenced by wider professional discourses present at the policy level, which are inevitably linked to institutions regulating the conduct of GPs. Therefore, this study applied a Foucauldian discourse analysis (a) to identify broader professional discourses in Belgian policy documents regarding patients with a migration background and depression in general practices, (b) to examine how patients with a migration background are discursively positioned and (c) to investigate which different balances of power in the relationship between GPs and patients with a migration background are demonstrated in the identified discourses. We identified three recurring discourses: (a) the othering discourse, (b) the health literacy discourse, and (c) the person-centred discourse. Our analysis demonstrated that the former two discourses illustrate the perpetuation of a biomedical discourse. While the last discourse is aligned with a counter-discourse associated with the person-centred care model in health care. Consequently, our analysis demonstrated the construction of a contradictory discursive framework throughout the various policy documents on which GPs might rely when speaking about patients with a migration background suffering from depression.