4.5 Article

A meta-analysis of ethnic differences in pathways to care at the first episode of psychosis

期刊

ACTA PSYCHIATRICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 130, 期 4, 页码 257-268

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/acps.12254

关键词

schizophrenia and disorders with psychotic features; health services accessibility; population groups

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Operating Grant [220976]
  2. CIHR Post-Doctoral Fellowship Award
  3. Medical Research Council [G0500817]
  4. Wellcome Trust [WT087417]
  5. European Union (European Community) [HEALTH-F2-2009-241909]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveWe sought to systematically review the literature on ethnic differences in the likelihood of general practitioner (GP) involvement, police involvement, and involuntary admission on the pathway to care of patients with first-episode psychosis (FEP). MethodWe searched electronic databases and conducted forward and backward tracking to identify relevant studies. We calculated pooled odds ratios (OR) to examine the variation between aggregated ethnic groups in the indicators of the pathway to care. ResultsWe identified seven studies from Canada and England that looked at ethnic differences in GP involvement (n=7), police involvement (n=7), or involuntary admission (n=5). Aggregated ethnic groups were most often compared. The pooled ORs suggest that Black patients have a decreased likelihood of GP involvement (OR=0.70, 0.57-0.86) and an increased likelihood of police involvement (OR=2.11, 1.67-2.66), relative to White patients. The pooled ORs were not statistically significant for patients with Asian backgrounds (GP involvement OR=1.23, 0.87-1.75; police involvement OR=0.86, 0.57-1.30). There is also evidence to suggest that there may be ethnic differences in the likelihood of involuntary admission; however, effect modification by several sociodemographic factors precluded a pooling of these data. ConclusionEthnic differences in pathways to care are present at the first episode of psychosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据